Revised RFC on range design for D2

Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail
Fri Oct 3 03:45:49 PDT 2008


Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Bruno Medeiros" wrote
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Eiffel also has properties
>>> that are obtained via syntactic conventions (getX and setX implement
>>> property x)
>> Hum, interesting, I just replied in another part of the thread with a 
>> suggestion that is just like that (and didn't know about it).
> 
> In fact, C++.net did something similar in that if you defined a property x 
> in C#, it really defined two hidden functions, get_x() and set_x() that 
> could be called from C++.
> 
> But the new C++.net is much better, you can actually use and define real 
> properties.
> 
> I consider this type of thing a hack, that probably shouldn't be used since 
> we are talking about a developing language and not something that has 
> decades of real-world use.  I personally think it was one of those Microsoft 
> marketing things where they made C++.net so it could interact with other 
> languages, but made it so ugly that you perceived C# as being soo much 
> better ;)  But that's just the cynic in me.
> 
> All that is needed is a keyword to signify that a function is really a 
> property, kind of like 'pure', and enforce the rules that have been 
> discussed.  Since D2 is already getting new keywords and is almost 
> backwards-incompatible with existing D1 code, I don't see this as a huge 
> issue.
> 

Just for the record, I didn't present that suggestion because it didn't 
require a new keyword. I think that's a very weak concern, and as I've 
said before, I find Walter's current obsession with keyword economy 
outdated and silly (example: "enum", among others).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list