> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:14:22 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> 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. > > Ahem, so you'd consider auto b = a.prop1(7); valid code under strict > property rules?
Oh wait. You're right. I didn't read that right. No, that wouldn't be legal. That would be both getting and setting. Why would you even try and do that with a property, let alone with several chained together? - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
