property syntax strawman

[Michiel Helvensteijn]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Then in a later message you mention:
> 
> bool empty.get() { ... }
> void empty.set(bool b) { ... }
> 
> which I like and which does not seem to have difficulties; the names
> "get" and "set" will be never used as such.

Yes, those are two notations for the same thing, and they have the same
problem. Let me demonstrate:

--------------------------------------------------
struct S {
    int get() { return 42; }
};

struct T {
    S _s;
    S property.get() { return _s; }
    void property.set(S s) { _s = s; }
}

T t;

auto X = t.property.get();
--------------------------------------------------

What is the type of X? It can be either S or int, depending on how D handles
the situation.

The ambiguity is in the possibility to directly reference the getter and
setter methods. In that other subthread (the older one) I listed some
possible solutions.

The first is to make such a program an error.

The second is not to allow a direct reference to a getter/setter (so X is an
int).

The third is to let the getter/setter overshadow S members (so X is an S).

-- 
Michiel Helvensteijn