[Design] return char[] or string?

[Manfred Nowak]

Regan Heath wrote
> I assume you agree that it would be quite nice to be able to use 
> properties in the error cases listed?

Not exactly properties, but one should be able to iron out those 
errors. As I stated before, one can use an inner class:

class A{
  private:
   int _a;
  public:
   Property a;
   this(){ a= new Property;}
   class Property{
     int opCall() { return _a; }
     int opAssign(int assgn) { _a= assgn; return opCall(); }
     int opAddAssign( int add){ _a+= add; return opCall();}
     int opPostInc(){ int tmp= _a++; return tmp;}
   }
}
void foo(inout A.Property i) {} // wart!!
void main(){
	A a = new A();
         int b;
         b = a.a = 5; 
	a.a += 1;
	a.a++;
         foo(a.a);
}

In the examples given here two warts are remaining:
- classes cannot derive from basic types, therefore the type of the 
formal parameter of `foo' has to be changed
- Stewarts point stays unhandled.

In fact the first wart may be closed by allowing something like 
`class Property: int' or `alias int Property'.

Stewarts point does not need overloading by return type, a 
conditional or lazy return `return? <expr>' would be enough. Where 
`return?' has the semantics to not be evaluated if the value of the 
expression `<expr>' is not needed or fed as an actual parameter to a 
function at a position in the formal parameter list, where a `lazy' 
parameter is declared.

-manfred