On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:17:33 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>
wrote:
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
First, remember that basic assignments can be chained: x = y = 1; So a
property should never return void, whether it's a setter or a getter
logically.
Second, there are situations where you want to be able to support:
a.prop1 = 5;
and
auto b = a.prop1(5).prop2(6);
or simply
a.prop1(5).prop2(6).prop3(7);
syntactically. There's also times/uses for functions to be chained
together using property syntax i.e.
a.verb1.verb2.verb3.verb4;
instead of
a.verb1().verb2().verb3().verb4();
But that's a slightly different issue.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
