Why are opCall's not implicitely assignable?

Derek Parnell derek at nomail.afraid.org
Wed Sep 27 19:07:13 PDT 2006


On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Karen Lanrap wrote:

> Ivan Senji wrote:
> 
>> No disaster.
> 
> Yes because in this case there are no global structures that can 
> capture such an assignment.
> 
> But are the opinions of posters, who make jokes on the readability of 
> other coders work, worth considering, if those posters are unable to 
> read their own examples properly?

I don't like getting personal, Karen, but you are starting to appear to me
to be a 'mean-spirited' person.

I assume the "posters, who make jokes" is referring to myself. If not, I
apologize in advance. 

I was not making jokes. I was not trying to be mean. I was not trying to
criticize you or in any other way give offense.

I was trying to understand your point of view and possibly express an
alternative. In other words, I was trying to have a polite conversation.
I'm sorry that I failed to appear to be doing that.

My understanding of your original premise is that you feel that opCall()
should be able to be used as an overloadable assignment method, which could
then be used to simplify writing code while at the same time not losing the
potential for complex processing.

While I appreciate the need for such a method, I feel that opCall() is not
the best one to use, and that a better 'property' facility would help the D
language much more.


-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
28/09/2006 11:58:11 AM



More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list