On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:45:09 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>
wrote:
As I've said before, we really need to decide whether @property has
loose
or strict semantics. Loose semantics means that non-@property functions
would still be callable without (), etc but @property functions wouldn't
be allowed to have ()s. Frankly, I hate @property, want to to have as
little effect as possible, like the flexibility of being able to call
the
same function both ways, and would have a lot of code break if this were
taken away, so my vote is loose semantics.
TDPL specifically gives it strict semantics. @property functions must be
called without parens, and non-@property functions must be called with
them.
So, if we want to go with loose semantics, then TDPL will need to be
changed.
Personally, I don't see much point to @property if its semantics are
loose.
- Jonathan M Davis
The point of @property, and the reason it was included in the language at
all, was to provide property syntax to the corner case of a returning a
zero-argument delegate from a function. That's all. That was the only
argument which was considered strong enough out of the many forum
discussions to warrant language status. Furthermore, @property was
explicitly defined at the time as having loose semantics. Regarding TDPL,
Andrei has expressed serious concerns with going whole-hog @property since
getting more experience with actually using it, so I don't feel that TDPL
is a strong guideline.
My point is that a strict interpretation of @property has not seriously
been discussed in the D community, and that any decision made here needs
to be elevated to the D newsgroup before implementation.
My position comes down on the side of loose semantics with no method of
strict enforcement, optional or otherwise.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
