"Alex Rønne Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 17-01-2012 13:41, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> You're all getting hung up on the trivial detail of the names. Look at >> the >> semantics: They retreive a range associated with the aa, right? Right. >> Property. It's a plain old classic getter. >> >> > > That doesn't make the name any less bad. Naming is important IMHO.
Right, I was only addressing the original matter "property or function?" > Hence why I'm also complaining about .dup/.idup. > Yes, dup/idup are clearly not properties. But they're from way before @property, so of course that's why they are how they are (Not that it's good for them to be that way). I'm also in favor of the suggestion of at least optionally allowing dup()/idup().
