On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:14:37 Michel Fortin wrote: > On 2011-12-13 16:57:33 +0000, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> said: > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 06:40:40 Michel Fortin wrote: > >> On 2011-12-13 04:25:33 +0000, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> said: > >>> For arrays, all you need to do is have the first argument be an > >>> array, > >>> and that works great for arrays, but arrays don't have much in the > >>> way > >>> of functions built in, so there's no conflict. > >> > >> Actually, there's still an open issue with array-member syntax and > >> @property used together. > > > > How so? If it's a property function, not a member function (which > > couldn't use array-member syntaxt anyway), and it takes an array as its > > first argument, then it _must_ be called with array-member syntax > > without parens. If it isn't a property, then you could call it with or > > without array-member syntax, but you have to use parens. I don't see > > any conflict there. > > The problem is that the definition of an array-member property getter > is the same thing as the definition of a module-level property setter.
I forgot about that, though I never liked the idea of module-level properties in the first place. > > Now, I don't know what -property is doing with it at the moment, but I > > don't see how it could work any other way. > > Currently I think you can do this: > > import std.range; > > int[] array = [1, 2]; > int x = array.front; // fine > int y = (front = a); // ??? > > And also you can't define array-member property setters because they > take three arguments and three argument property functions are not > allowed. You mean calling a property function on an element in an array? I would only have expected that to work if the element type had such a property. I wouldn't ever have expected you to be able to declare a property for arrays which allowed you to call it as a property on the array's elements. > And also, in case of conflict, currently you can write > `std.range.front(array)` to disambiguate, but how does that work with > @property enforcement, probably not that well? Disambiguate with what? With a module-level property? As it stands, I expect that module-level properties which are arrays just wouldn't work. - Jonathan M Davis
