[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161

Jonathan M Davis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan M Davis  ---
-property is dead, and anything revolving around changing what @property does
(which is almost nothing) really needs a DIP.

--

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161

Nick Treleaven  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||pull
URL||https://github.com/dlang/dm
   ||d/pull/8320

--

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161

Nick Treleaven  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||n...@geany.org

--- Comment #5 from Nick Treleaven  ---
> s.prop = AliasSeq!(1, 2);
> I agree that it should be disallowed
Yes, because otherwise the restriction to a maximum of 2 arguments doesn't make
sense.

--

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161

bitwise  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nicolas.jincher...@gmail.co
   ||m

--- Comment #4 from bitwise  ---
(In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #0)

> struct S
> {
> @property void prop(int a, int b)
> {
> }
> }
> 
> It can't possibly be used as a property function either. I'd argue that any
> such function should be considered an error as long as it's marked as
> @property and the -property flag is used.

This works:

struct S {
@property void prop(int a, int b){}
}

int main(string[] argv) {
S s;
s.prop = AliasSeq!(1, 2);
return 0;
}

This behavior is not obvious though, and I agree that it should be disallowed.

--

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161

Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|unspecified |D2

--

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8161



--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-05-29 23:24:13 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
 This code compiles with -property:
 
 struct S
 {
 @property void prop()
 {
 }
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 }
 
 
 It makes no sense that it would.

I can agree.

 Another example would be a function like
 
 struct S
 {
 @property void prop(int a, int b)
 {
 }
 }
 
 It can't possibly be used as a property function either. I'd argue that any
 such function should be considered an error as long as it's marked as 
 @property
 and the -property flag is used.

A @property function has two parameters is now allowed for UFCS property
setter.

@property foo(T)(T obj, int val) { ... }
void main() {
   S s;
   s.foo = 1;  // translated to .foo(s, 1), it's valid.
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8161



--- Comment #2 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2012-05-29 23:30:30 
PDT ---
 A @property function has two parameters is now allowed for UFCS property
 setter.

 @property foo(T)(T obj, int val) { ... }
 void main() {
S s;
s.foo = 1;  // translated to .foo(s, 1), it's valid.
 }

Yeah, because that's a free function. It's valid to use it as a property, so it
makes sense for it to compile with @property. The example that I gave with two
arguments was a member function, which already has the invisible this
parameter, so it won't work as a property.

The point is that any function which cannot be legally used as a property
function should not compile when marked with @property and compiled with
-property.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 8161] -property should give an error for invalid property functions

[d-bugmail]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8161



--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-05-29 23:38:53 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
  A @property function has two parameters is now allowed for UFCS property
  setter.
 
  @property foo(T)(T obj, int val) { ... }
  void main() {
 S s;
 s.foo = 1;  // translated to .foo(s, 1), it's valid.
  }
 
 Yeah, because that's a free function. It's valid to use it as a property, so 
 it
 makes sense for it to compile with @property. The example that I gave with two
 arguments was a member function, which already has the invisible this
 parameter, so it won't work as a property.
 
 The point is that any function which cannot be legally used as a property
 function should not compile when marked with @property and compiled with
 -property.

OK. I got an understanding.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---