Is it possible to handle 'magic' property assignments a'la PHP?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2014-01-07 16:58, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> Y'know, I've always wanted "trailing delegate syntax":
>
> 	func(x, y, z; p, q, r) {
> 		// body
> 	}
>
> gets translated into:
>
> 	func(p, q, r, (x, y, z) => /* body */);
>
> Since we already have UFCS, which translates a leading fragment into the
> first argument (x.func(y) --> func(x,y)), it seems perfectly reasonable
> to do something with the final argument too, like the above.
>
> This would allow one to implement, for example, foreach_reverse as a
> library function instead of a language keyword:
>
> 	void foreach_reverse(I, R)(R range, void delegate(I) dg)
> 	{
> 		...
> 		dg(idx);
> 		...
> 	}
>
> 	// Gets translated to:
> 	//	foreach_reverse(range, (uint i) => /* body */);
> 	foreach_reverse (uint i; range) {
> 		... // body
> 	}
>
> 	// And you can use UFCS too:
> 	range.foreach_reverse(uint i) {
> 		... // body
> 	}

Exactly, that's what it is for. Perhaps supporting an alias parameter 
would be good as well, since those are inlined:

void foo (alias dg) ();

foo {
     // body
}

Translated to:

foo!({
     // body
});

> I'm not holding my breath on this one, though. It's a rather big change
> and ultimately is just syntactic sugar. Maybe it can go on the list of
> features for D3... ;-)

I've brought this up before. If I recall correctly, it didn't was that 
much resistance as one could think. Although this was before we had the 
lambda syntax.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg