> How about the amount of existing code it breaks? How about the fact that > it breaks using the same function for both method chaining and with > property syntax?
Something like auto b = a.prop1.prop2.prop3; should work. I doesn't at present, but it should. There's a bug report on it. As for breaking existing code, _of course_ it's going to. That's to be expected, and I would have thought that that was expected when @property was introduced in the first place. It just hasn't happened yet because @property has been introduced in steps. First it's added but not enforced. Then, once it works properly, we can make the change to enforcement like any other breaking change: first warning about it, then deprecating it, and then outright making it an error. I don't think that there's much question that @property can't currently be enforced - there are too many @property bugs - and we're going to have make the switch in stages just like any other breaking change. But I don't think that that's reason enough to not go for strict enforcement. I definitely think that @property is essentially pointless without strict enforcement. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
