D's "accessors" are like abusing operator overloads

[Denis Koroskin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:56:36 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:44:48 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.urfzx0ia1hx7vj at biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no...
>>>
>>> I feel the problem here is that you can access a type's static members
>>> through an instance of it, not so much the property syntax.
>>>
>>
>> That didn't even occur to me. That's certainly a problem too.
>
>
> Yes, that was my main beef with the compiler when I had to fix it.  I'd
> prefer static member functions not be callable on instances.  On the other
> hand, accessing static members is sometimes convenient:
>
> ReallyReallyLongStructName n;
> n = n.init;
>

int x = 5;
writefln(x.init); // prints 0; how is that possible?

It should certainly be either disallowed or yield 5.

int x = 5;
writefln(typeof(x).init); // 0 as expected

Now this one is fine.

> Note that even with the poposed fix, this is valid code which makes for
> much confusion:
>
> TimeSpan.fromSeconds = 30;
>
> Which essentially does nothing, but looks like it's setting a static
> property.
>
> I agree with you that the designer of a class should be the one to define
> its interface, not the user.  I've always wished for the ability to
> specify which functions should be properties and which ones should not.
>
> BTW, I think the way C# properties work with chaining is to do this:
>
> // a b c are properties
> a = b = c = 42;
>
> translates to:
> set_c(42);
> set_b(get_c());
> set_a(get_b());
>
> -Steve
>