Is  mandatory for array operations?
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Fri May 7 08:11:47 PDT 2010
On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:08:22 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu>
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:19:09 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>> There are several compiler bugs relating to array operations, and
>>>>>> almost all relate to this issue. I'd like to fix them, but I need
>>>>>> to know which way it is supposed to work.
>>>>> The  should be required. I worry that otherwise there will be
>>>>> ambiguous cases that will cause trouble.
>>> Glad we agree. An example is the C hack where if foo is a function,
>>> then &foo as well as foo mean the address of the function. This little
>>> ambiguity, originally meant as a convenience, has caused much grief.
>> In the same vein, probably it's time to bite the bullet and require
>> @property for parens-less function calls.
> Disagreed. I've really come to enjoy parens-less coding, though I know
> others don't like it. But today both camps can write in their preferred
> style and write libraries for each other. Either deciding on an opt-in
> (@property) or opt-out(@!property) basis seems likely to A) kill the
> other programming style or B) lead to a bunch of synaptic load on the
> programmer as they try to remember which style each class uses.
As I've said before, I think a possible compromise to this is to allow
paren-less function calls when the return type is void. These functions
cannot be misinterpreted as properties.
I won't go over the other points again :)
More information about the Digitalmars-d