On 20/01/12 12:57 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:41:44 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/19/12 4:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:06:00 -0500, torhu <[email protected]> wrote:
If the type of byKeys is Range, I would expect to be able to treat it
like one. Not like one, then another, then another, then another... ad
infinitum.
I don't know what you mean. You can treat it like one.
-Steve
It's the rvalue aspect. byKey does not hold a range inside the
hashtable (as a member variable would do). Each use of byKey gives you
a range that you get to iterate from the beginning.
The point of a property is to allow for read-only access on something
that is logically a property but can only be implemented via a function.
byKeys is such a property. There is no way to specify a field that
behaves the same. This doesn't make properties invalid or useless.
Can you define what "is logically a property means"? (I assume you meant
"field" there)
That means different things to different people. For example, in my
mind, something that is logically a field would have an address. From
what I can see, byKeys is logically a function (not a field) in every
way (because it *is* a function).
