> > 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?
Oh. I suppose that that could be legal if the value of the property was callable with a single integer and that function returned a value. If so, that should be legal. But other than that, I can't think of why it would be legal to do that, or make any sense to for that matter. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
