Fixing const arrays

[torhu]

On 12.12.2011 16:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/12/11 9:09 AM, torhu wrote:
>>  On 12.12.2011 15:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>  On 12/12/11 6:24 AM, torhu wrote:
>>>>  save being a property is a stupid inconsistency.
>>>
>>>  I'm not so sure.
>>>
>>>  Andrei
>>
>>  Why? As far as I can tell, it's inconsistent with what properties are
>>  used like in other programming languages.
>
> Why?
>
>>  Saving something is an action,
>>  which to me is a different concept.
>
> So if we called .save .state or .current things would be any different?
>

Yes, completely.  The whole property concept is basically a naming 
convention.  Except that parentheses are now involved.

x = obj.foo(); // do the foo thing, then return something
x = obj.bar;   // get bar
obj.bar = 42;  // set bar

x = obj.save;  // get save... hm, that doesn't sound right


>>  If it was called currentState
>>  instead, that's what I'd call a property.
>
> Ah. So now we're wasting time not on @property (as I'd predicted), but
> instead on what _names_ are suitable to work with it. I rest my case.
>
>>  Making something a property gives it certain connotations that break
>>  when it's called 'save'. That you can save the state of the range is a
>>  property, if you will. But the action of doing so is not a property.
>>  People are going to be surprised when save() doesn't compile. Isn't
>>  there something called the principle of least surprise?
>
> I think we should only worry about surprising the uninitiated with how
> poorly designed the whole @property thing is.

I'm not trying to defend @property, I think it adds about as much pain 
as it does gain.  But it's there, and your ranges are using it :)