property syntax strawman

Daniel Keep daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com
Mon Aug 3 08:24:54 PDT 2009



Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> ...
> 
> The only issue with this is if the type returned from the getter
> actually defines a get field or method.  While having a method called
> get might be a likely possibility, having that on a type that is likely
> to be returned as a property is probably unlikely. There is of course a
> workaround:
> 
> ...
> 
> -Steve

Or you could just use __traits and avoid having to invent increasingly
obtuse layers of syntax.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list