Yet a new properties proposal

[Dimitar Kolev]

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:07:19 -0400, Dimitar Kolev  
> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:46:39 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
> >> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:59:38 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
> >> >> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I don't see what advantages this has over other proposals.  What  
> >> is
> >> >> >> wrong
> >> >> >> with a.a such that we have to resort to a#a?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -Steve
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > People are crying over compilers not know which is a property and
> >> >> which
> >> >> > is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> At definition time, not usage time.  I want the usage to be  
> >> identical to
> >> >> fields, otherwise, it's not as seamless.  This makes an important
> >> >> difference for generic code.
> >> >
> >> > What if the compiler just expanding this to well inlining. So a#a = 3
> >> > would just means a.a = 3 just that the compiler will have easier time
> >> > understanding this.
> >>
> >> If you specify a property at definition by doing int#a, then why do you
> >> also need to specify it's a property when calling it?  And if it's not
> >> necessary, then your proposal is no different than adding a keyword.  On
> >> those merits, it's fine with me if people think int #a is better than
> >> property int a, but I absolutely don't want to have to modify my code to
> >> call properties using a #.
> >>
> >> -Steve
> >
> > Since when is D 2.0 frozen so that we have to take care of old D 2.0  
> > code.
> >
> > This is not an accusation just a reminder. Hope ware not going for the  
> > mistakes of C++.
> 
> I understand that D2 is not frozen.  I don't want to call properties with  
> a#b instead of a.b in D2, D3, or even D4, unless you can show that it  
> provides some benefit.  From what I can tell, it does not.  Sorry.  I  
> don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think your proposal makes any sense at  
> all.  Maybe you can answer my first question -- why do you need to call a  
> property with a#b when you can call it with a.b?
> 
> -Steve
> 

Different example:

class plane
{
    bool fly = false;
    bool fly()
    {
         if (fly == false) return false;

         // code for flying.
         // If it breaks for some reason
         return false;

         // else return that everything is okay.

         return true;
    }
}

class pilot
{
      if (myPlane.fly) 
         myPlane.fly;
}

So this becomes:

class plane
{
    bool fly = false;
    bool fly()
    {
         if (@fly == false) return false;

         // code for flying.
         // If it breaks for some reason
         return false;

         // else return that everything is okay.

         return true;
    }
}

class pilot
{
      if (myPlane at fly) 
         myPlane.fly;
}