On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:45:18 -0400, Steve Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Jacques <[email protected]>
To: Steve Schveighoffer <[email protected]>; Discuss the phobos
library for D <[email protected]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [phobos] Time to get ready for the next release
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:26:51 -0400, Steve Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, I think you are right. I wasn't thinking about dmd erroring
on a statement that does nothing. You'd have to assign something to the
expression, like:
auto x = s.seconds = 5;
Which still looks like it does something else, but is much less
likely to
occur.
You wouldn't need the parameter to be immutable, because the parameter
is a value, making this a strong-pure function.
But this is still not an argument against strict properties.
You were making an argument for strict properties, via actual bug
reports (which
I commend you on), and I was making a counter-argument to your argument.
What I meant was, the technicality that the function could be pure, and
that would remove the possibility of using it the "wrong way" does not
invalidate the property problem. In fact, it does not necessarily
invalidate the example, since it is D1 we are talking about here (Tango).
I don't think in terms of a single property problem (I don't even know
what you mean by that). I think in terms of many small problems of varying
severity. (And this solves the vast majority of the high severity issues)
And any solution to the 'property problem' would be D2/D3 only, so I don't
know why you're mentioning D1.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
