> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:57:57 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> 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. > > What about auto b = a.prop1(5).prop2(6).prop3(7); ?
I'd consider that to be the same. It should work, but it doesn't. There's a bug report for 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. > > Actually, no it wasn't expected. @property was introduced with loose > semantics, not strict semantics. And, by the way, it was judged worth > while with only loose semantics. Virtually every discussion I recall about @property has indicated that we expected to have strict semantics eventually. It's been long enough, that I don't remember all of the discussions about @property when it was intially introduced, but I believe any discussion of @property that's happened at all recently and discussed enforcement expected there to be strict semantics eventually. And there have been several confused newbies posting about how @property wasn't enforced. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
