Fixing const arrays

[Regan Heath]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:27:57 -0000, Regan Heath <regan at netmail.co.nz>  
wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:36:43 -0000, Michel Fortin  
> <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-13 23:08:43 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu  
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>
>>> We could have inferred property intention from the code pattern,  
>>> without requiring any keyword. That solution (which was discussed and  
>>> rejected in this newsgroup) was miles ahead from the drivel of  
>>> @property we have now.
>>
>> By "code patterns", you mean something like this?
>>
>> 	struct Foo
>> 	{
>> 		int getBar();
>> 		void setBar(int);
>> 	}
>>
>> 	void main()
>> 	{
>> 		Foo foo;
>> 		int a = foo.bar;  // calls getBar()
>> 		foo.bar = a;      // calls setBar(a)
>> 	}
>
> Why not something similar to C# syntax...
>
> struct Foo
> {
>    int bar		// <- does DMD do lookahead?  detect { instead of ; here and  
> trigger "property" parsing
>    {
>      get
>      {
>        return this;  // <- 'this' meaning the 'bar' member
>      }
>      set
>      {
>        this = value; // <- 'this' meaning the 'bar' member, 'value'  
> meaning the RHS of the "£instance.bar = <value>" statement
>      }
>    }
> }
>
> Regan

Apologies, there was a typo/mistake in the 'get' above. :)

Regan

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/