property syntax strawman

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> 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).

I see. My view is that .get and .set are simply symbolic placeholders, 
but indeed some may get confused.

Andrei