Is this really a bug?

[Peter Alexander]

On 7/01/12 1:19 AM, Daniel wrote:
> Hi, I've read on Bugzilla Issue 6398 that this is a bug:
>
> static int value;
> ref foo(){ printf("getter\n"); return value; }
> ref foo(int x){ printf("setter\n"); value = x; return value; }
>
> void main(){ foo = 1; }  // Should print "setter", but print "getter" in 2.054
>
> But, this is pretty convenient syntax, no? That way you could implement only one function foo() and use it as setter and getter.
>
> I'm a bit confused about it.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel


It is convenient syntax, but sometimes you want the getter to return a 
ref, but want the setter to do something different to "getter() = x". 
This bug says that there is no way to override a ref returning getter 
with a custom setter.