On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Steve Schveighoffer <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Given that those arguing against tight semantics likely don't use > @property, I think they are not really concerned with the semantics of > @property functions, they only care about non-@property functions. > Likely, they would not care whether @property stays or goes, just as long as > it doesn't affect how they call non-@property fucntions. Correct me if > I'm wrong, guys. > > Right. I think @property solves a somewhat important problem by disambiguating the case of returning delegates, etc. Whether solving this problem is worth the complexity it adds to the language is something I'm neutral on. Basically, I really don't care what happens with @property as long as designs that rely on non-@property functions behaving as they do currently don't break. I wouldn't care if we were only talking about breaking code in trivial ways, but we're talking, as you mention, about breaking existing *designs*, and designs I happen to like. I understand you don't like them, but that's not the point. The point is that we're talking about very non-trivial breakage of existing code, and @property could solve the main problem it was meant to solve without doing so by having loose semantics. This is what really ticks me off about @property with strict semantics.
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
