@property

[Robert Jacques]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:21:37 -0400, Pelle <pelle.mansson at gmail.com> wrote:

> As heard around these parts, a lot of people want property-style  
> function calls to require the function to be declared with @property,  
> like this:
>
> @property foo(); //getter
> @property foo(int); //setter
>
> foo; //getter
> foo = 13; //setter
>
> While this seems quite reasonable, in practice I and others feel this  
> leads to confusion, especially the getter part. Mostly when the getter  
> has no setter counterpart. D also lets us call no-argument functions  
> without parentheses today, so for this to happen a lot of code needs to  
> change.
>
> My suggestion is as follows; require @property for single-argument  
> setters *only*. Make the silly writeln = 13; go away, but keep the "a b  
> c".split;. This way, there can be no confusion about @property, and most  
> code will go unchanged.
>
> I hope this was not too late a suggestion. :)

writeln = 13; doesn't compile, just so you know. ;)