If I had my way

[Michel Fortin]

On 2011-12-13 16:57:33 +0000, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> said:

> On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 06:40:40 Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2011-12-13 04:25:33 +0000, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> said:
>>> For arrays, all you need to do is have the first argument be an array,
>>> and that works great for arrays, but arrays don't have much in the way
>>> of functions built in, so there's no conflict.
>> 
>> Actually, there's still an open issue with array-member syntax and
>> @property used together.
> 
> How so? If it's a property function, not a member function (which couldn't use
> array-member syntaxt anyway), and it takes an array as its first argument, then
> it _must_ be called with array-member syntax without parens. If it isn't a
> property, then you could call it with or without array-member syntax, but you
> have to use parens. I don't see any conflict there.

The problem is that the definition of an array-member property getter 
is the same thing as the definition of a module-level property setter.


> Now, I don't know what -property is doing with it at the moment, but I don't
> see how it could work any other way.

Currently I think you can do this:

	import std.range;

	int[] array = [1, 2];
	int x = array.front; // fine
	int y = (front = a); // ???

And also you can't define array-member property setters because they 
take three arguments and three argument property functions are not 
allowed.

And also, in case of conflict, currently you can write 
`std.range.front(array)` to disambiguate, but how does that work with 
@property enforcement, probably not that well?


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