property syntax strawman
John C
johnch_atms at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 3 07:37:53 PDT 2009
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:25:02 -0400, Michiel Helvensteijn
> <m.helvensteijn.remove at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> So the poster who started this trail of the thread is assuming that
>>>
>>> t.property.get()
>>>
>>> identifies the property getter directly. But what if the return type of
>>> t.property.get() contains a method get()? Since t.property is an
>>> alis for
>>> t.property.get(), Should t.property.get() map to:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> That is the ambiguity.
>>
>> I myself see great value in the ability to access the getter and setter
>> functions directly. But because of the ambiguity you described, this is
>> problematic for D.
>>
>> Andrei sees 'get' and 'set' as nothing more than declaration-side
>> indications of the getter and setter. Not real functions. In that
>> case, the
>> ambiguity doesn't exist.
>>
>> To alleviate possible confusion, it has been suggested that a space be
>> used,
>> not a dot, between the name of the property and get/set in the
>> declaration.
>>
>
> So your answer is, there is no ambiguity because it's not possible to
> access the getter/setter directly? That poses a problem for existing
> code which uses delegates to such functions. I'm not sure we want to
> lose that ability.
>
> -Steve
>
Back to the drawing board.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list