Accessors, byLine, input ranges

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-01-29 12:56:43 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:23:24 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>> Consider:
>>> 
>>> struct Stack(T) {
>>>      T pop();
>>>      ...
>>> }
>>> 
>>> By your definition, pop() should be a property. It doesn't quite strike 
>>> me as an intuitive decision.
>> 
>> is pop's main purpose to fetch a value or to modify the stack?  I'd say 
>> the purpose is split equally, so it's not a function whose main purpose 
>> is to fetch a value.
> 
> So now we're down to proportions, nuance, and where "main" goes. You 
> made my point. I win.

You win because Steven's definition is not good enough. I said before 
that we should have a authoritative definition. If we really can't 
define how a property should be defined after some reflection, then you 
really win.

My definition is that a property gives access to an aspect of an object 
and doesn't modify it (the getter is essentially logical-const). In 
this case, 'pop' doesn't give you access to something in the stack, it 
removes an element (that's an action) and give you the element. It's 
pretty clear that 'pop' is used as a verb here, that should be enough 
to decide it's a function.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/