Bug reports. People having stupid arguments just like this one on why you
should change how the code works to fit their style ;)
Essentially, ambiguously named functions in the context of "I can call this as
a property or a function" lead to people getting surprising behavior and then
complaining about the surprise, when I can do nothing about it.
I've actually had this happen. I had to change function names in Tango in
order to avoid people complaining. The example was, I had a bunch of generator
functions in TimeSpan, like
// create a time spand that represents the given number of seconds
static TimeSpan seconds(int s)
which would be used like this:
auto s = TimeSpan.seconds(5);
But it could also be used as a property. So this compiled and constructed a
temporary time span and throw it away:
TimeSpan s;
s.seconds = 5;
So we had to change seconds to fromSeconds. It still allows code like this:
s.fromSeconds = 5;
but instead of being disallowed, it just looks horrible, hopefully cluing the
reader to go examine the documentation for TimeSpan. That's the best we can
do. I have no power to enforce the usage.
-Steve
>________________________________
>From: David Simcha <[email protected]>
>To: Discuss the phobos library for D <[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:19 AM
>Subject: Re: [phobos] Time to get ready for the next release
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Steve Schveighoffer
>
>In this case, it's not actually the library designer, but the user of the
>library that is deciding the
semantics. Big difference, and my huge problem with D's properties.
>>
>>
>>With strict properties, the power is to the library designer to
decide on semantics. With loose properties, it's to the user. You can
think you are creating a usable API, but it's still possible to abuse
it.
>>
>>
>>In other words, loose properties prevents *my* designs, even if it
makes *your* usage possible. Note that it's your usage, *not* your design
that you are enforcing. The API is beyond your control since the user
is free to call however he/she wants.
>>
>>
>>So I think the language shouldn't hinder the library author's designs in
>>favor of the caller abusing usage.
>>
>>
>>
>>-Steve
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>phobos mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>If you look at it this way, then I fail to see the problem with a little
>abuse. The library designer doesn't have to read the caller's code. Why
>should he/she care if the API is being abused a little?
>
>_______________________________________________
>phobos mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
>
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
