I think I would like to have something in the middle of strict and loose semantics. I would like that functions marked with @property have to be called like a field:
auto bar = foo.field; foo.field = 3; But functions not marked with @property still can be called without the parentheses: foo.bar(); foo.bar; On 21 apr 2011, at 16:09, David Simcha wrote: > As I've said before, we really need to decide whether @property has loose or > strict semantics. Loose semantics means that non-@property functions would > still be callable without (), etc but @property functions wouldn't be allowed > to have ()s. Frankly, I hate @property, want to to have as little effect as > possible, like the flexibility of being able to call the same function both > ways, and would have a lot of code break if this were taken away, so my vote > is loose semantics. > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Michel Fortin <[email protected]> > wrote: > Le 2011-04-21 à 6:48, Torarin a écrit : > > > Dmd has a bug that causes the @property attribute to be disregarded in > > functions that return auto. > > Indeed. I think I have a fix for that in the "@property" branch of my DMD > fork on github. Perhaps I should make a pull request from that. > > Actually, I could make a pull request for the entire "@property" branch, it > shouldn't impact things much as enforcement of @property is only done if you > add the command line switch -property. Would that make sense? > > -- > Michel Fortin > [email protected] > http://michelf.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos > > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos -- /Jacob Carlborg
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
