Jonathan M Davis Wrote: > On Friday 04 March 2011 04:59:14 David Nadlinger wrote: > > On 3/3/11 10:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > I'd strongly argue that global/module properties make no sense. What are > > > they a property of? The module? > > > > You could as well say: I'd strongly argue that global/module variables > > make no sense. What are they a variable of? The module? > > > > In my opinion, allowing global variables but not global properties just > > creates yet another unneeded special case. > > I see no special case or inconsistency. The original idea behind a property > (as > I understand it) is to abstract member variables so that you can easily > switch > between having a public member variable and having a public member function > without having to change code. The term property implies that it is a > property > or attribute of whatever it's on. A global variable or a local variable or > any > kind of variable not on a class or struct is free-floating and not a property > or > attribute of anything. How many languages which have properties have them on > _anything_ other than objects? > > I was surprised that anyone would suggest that @property could be used on > anything other than a class or struct's member function. I strongly suspect > that > the main reason that anyone is thinking that way is because properties in D > grew > out of being able to call pretty much any old function without parens as long > as > it had no parameters instead of based on the concept of properties to begin > with > as it likely would have been in other languages. > > - Jonathan M Davis
Let's talk about accessors instead of properties because we are talking about the functions, right, not the storage per se? @getter, @setter as proposed by Michel Fortin.
