On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:41:17 -0400, David Simcha <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jonathan M Davis
[snip]
I know that there are a number of people on the list - particularly
newer
posters - who fully expect @property to be strict and are surpised when
it
isn't. And I see _zero_ problem with strong property enforcement as
long as
the compiler isn't buggy with regards to properties (which it currently
is).
So, I'm 100% behind strict enforcement.
- Jonathan M Davis
What about the fact that no two people can agree what should and shouldn't
be a property? Or, more practically, that third party library A won't
conform with organization B's coding policies? Or how about that an O(1)
property which gets re-factored into a big expensive O(N) operation (i.e.
see bug 5813) Or ranges/containers that may all have different mixes of
function-like methods and field-like methods. Speaking of templates, what
about how well/poorly opDispatch, etc compose with @property? Oh, and then
there are entire articles against the @property solution to the
field/method syntax problem in computer science literature (look up the
Uniform access principle used in Ruby and Eiffel).
Also, surprise isn't necessarily a bad thing. Methods-as-properties
surprised me I received when I first started using D and it put a massive
smile of joy onto my face in the process.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
