new DIP5: Properties 2

[Ary Borenszweig]

Andrei Alexandrescu escribió:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:53:12 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> But in the case of properties only allowed without parens, functions 
>>>> require parens, you are defining a rule for the compiler.  Think of 
>>>> the parentheses as an extension of the function name, like punctuation.
>>>
>>> But you say no parens means query, parens means action. This is sheer 
>>> unchecked convention.
>>
>> But we already have sheer unchecked convention!  I could make a 
>> function called sort that reverses an array.
> 
> Of course we do. My point is that there's no need to add gratuitous 
> mechanisms fostering conventions that go unchecked.
> 
>> I don't get why it makes any difference to you that the meaning of 
>> parentheses and no parentheses is used by the author of the function.  
>> How is this bad or somehow worse than what we have now?  If you don't 
>> trust the author's functions do what they are named for, don't use his 
>> functions and properties.
> 
> Well you can trivialize all you want but the matters are different. It's 
> one thing to have good names, good designs, trusted code etc. and a 
> whole different thing to define a feature of which entire existence only 
> serves only an unchecked convention.

Like... ddoc?