On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:54:42 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
downs wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:34:57PM +0100, Pelle Månsson wrote:
I disagree, I find the function calls without the () to be really
prettifying.
But maybe that's just me.
I don't think that it causes serious bugs, you would see that it's an
integer the moment you try and use it. It also helps changing code
from/to functions.
I really like this feature, and would miss it should it go away.
Me too.
Me three.
There was a long discussion about that, which prompted the addition of
@property. I was in the an...@property camp, but had understanding and
sympathy for the ambiguity issues involved without @property.
There was a vote in which as far as I recall the p...@property camp was
beaten to a tender pulp.
Now @property is in. That has created (as I had anticipated) the
unresolved issue of choosing between @property or just function for any
given parameterless function. Also I need to litter my code with
@property. To this day I am not sure whether we made the right decision.
1. Choosing between including @property or not is rare. Most cases are
obvious. If you worked with a language that requires property notation
(i.e. C#) this would not be as big an issue for you.
2. Defining @property on functions you wish to call as properties can be
done all at once, enclosing all properties in a @property { } block. No
need to "litter" all your code with that. Furthermore, function signature
'documentation' is not as littering as you think. Verbosity at definition
is not as cumbersome as verbosity at the call site. In other words, the
extra litter at definition time pays huge dividends in clarity at the call
site, and is not a constant annoyance (you only define things once).
I'm sure C developers who were used to omitting prototypes were equally
miffed when it became required.
-Steve
