new DIP5: Properties 2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jimbob wrote:
> "Kagamin" <spam at here.lot> wrote in message 
> news:h4jq11$1jvq$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP5
>>
>> As namespaces were proposed, a variant of them is in DIP5 now.
> 
> Why not just..
> 
> class Foo
> {
> private:
>      int mx;
> public:
>      int x.opGet() { return mx; }
>      void x.opSet(int i) { mx = i; }
>      void x.opInc() { mx++; }
> }
> 
> or instead...
> 
> class Foo
> {
> private:
>      int mx;
> public:
>      int x:opGet() { return mx; }
>      void x:opSet(int i) { mx = i; }
>      void x:opInc() { mx++; }
> }
> 
> So that
> 
> foo.x++;
> 
> Would be compiled as
> 
> foo.x.opInc();
> 
> In the same way
> 
> foo++;
> 
> Would is compiled as
> 
> foo.opInc();

Nice. Is x.opGet overridable?

This is a trick question hinting at the fact that you'd need to define 
that. I presume it's reasonable to say it is, unless people say

final int x.opGet() { ... }

or something. My point is that when you define new syntax you must add a 
host of ancillary definitions that reveal how it interacts with the 
existing language. This problem is obviated by the lowering approach.


Andrei