Re: [phobos] phobos commit, revision 1689

Andrei Alexandrescu Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:41:35 -0700

A range implemented as a class would define

T save() { return clone(); }


Andrei

On 06/25/2010 08:24 AM, Steve Schveighoffer wrote:

In fact, save should not be implemented unless it looks like this:

T save() { return this; }

So it's pretty much a property.  If you implement save on ranges where the 
operation will be costly, you are looking for trouble with algorithms that 
require save.

This is why I don't really like the concept of save.

-Steve



----- Original Message ----

From: Lars Tandle Kyllingstad<[email protected]>
To: Discuss the phobos library for D<[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, June 25, 2010 2:44:51 AM
Subject: Re: [phobos] phobos commit, revision 1689

Well said.  This is the rule I am using as
well.


-Lars



On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 11:49 -0700, Sean Kelly

wrote:
All a matter of opinion, but I'd say that @property should only
be applied to logical properties of the data structure (go figure).  A
clone method (ie. save) doesn't represent an attribute of the data, it's simply
a non-mutating operation on the data.  An easy litmus test is whether the
member could be replaced with a public variable.  If so, it's probably a
property.  This is the real purpose of the no-parens syntax anyway--it
allows the class designer to replace public data members with functions at no
cost to the end user.

On Jun 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:

I think it should be a property. I

followed the convention that stuff that doesn't change "this" is a
property.


Andrei

On

06/23/2010 09:01 AM, David Simcha wrote:

Isn't that the point

of @property?  I just followed what Andrei was

doing.  If there's anywhere where I didn't put @property in, it's
purely

an unintentional oversight.  Please let me know

and/or fix it.


On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:34

AM, Max Samukha<
href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]

<mailto:
href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]>>
wrote:

    On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM,

href="http://dsource.org";>dsource.org<http://dsource.org>

href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]<mailto:
ymailto="mailto:[email protected]";
href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]>>  wrote:


        phobos commit, revision

   user: dsimcha

   save() is sometimes attributed with @property, other times it is

    not. Is it really a property? I don't think it is a good

idea to tag

    every function with @property just to

make it callable without ().

_______________________________________________

phobos mailing list

ymailto="mailto:[email protected]";
href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]<mailto:
ymailto="mailto:[email protected]";
href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]>

    http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

_______________________________________________

phobos mailing

list

href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]

href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos"; target=_blank

http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

_______________________________________________

phobos mailing

list

href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]

href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos"; target=_blank

http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos



_______________________________________________
phobos mailing
list

href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]

href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos"; target=_blank

http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos



_______________________________________________
phobos

mailing list

href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]

href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos"; target=_blank

http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos




_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

Re: [phobos] phobos commit, revision 1689

Reply via email to