Is [] mandatory for array operations?

Pelle pelle.mansson at gmail.com
Sun May 9 08:32:54 PDT 2010


On 05/09/2010 04:21 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Pelle:
>> Please, no. :)
>> Just require @property for assignment-is-a-call code.
>
> Special cases are baaaad. They are usually not special enough.
>
> Experience shows me that implicit operations or untidy semantics often leads to big troubles, even when you don't see such troubles at first.
>
> The obligatory usage of () makes the language a little less handy, but more tidy, and removes a source of possible troubles.
>
> There is already a @property syntax that can be used on methods and free functions. Having another half-baked feature doesn't help the language.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Well, then I see no reason not to apply @property to almost every 
function there is, if you can call it without arguments. Or, for array 
functions, as a property of an array.

I mean, @property should be for properties, and if we define that not to 
be something that can be read and written as a variable, I believe the 
definition of what a property actually is will bikeshed us into oblivion.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list