property syntax strawman

[John C]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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

Does the ambiguity go away if we replace the '.' with a space?

Declaration:

bool empty get();
void empty set(bool);

Declaration:

bool empty get() { return empty_; }
void empty set(bool b) { empty_ = b; }