Is @property implementable?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday 02 March 2011 23:12:43 %u wrote:
> > Well, it wouldn't be universal then. For a function to be treated
> 
> as a property, it would require an annotation, but universal
> function call syntax isn't supposed to require an annotation any
> more than calling a function on an array as if it were a member
> function requires an annotation. It's supposed to work with any
> function.
> 
> So are you saying a hypothetical function like
> 
>     char[] strcpy(char[] destination, const char[] source);
> 
> should be callable like:
> 
>     myString.strcpy(myString2);
> 
> ?
> 
> Isn't that asking for disaster, since it does the exact opposite of
> what the user expects (since the source and destination are
> switched)?
> 
> I think we need an annotation for this (even for arrays), since
> otherwise it's too easy to go wrong.

How are the destination and source switched? The arguments are in the exact same 
order, only now one of them is to the left of the function name. It's been like 
this with arrays for a long time. It's not going away, and it's not going to 
require an annotation. That would be a big change to the language, and the 
ability to call arrays like this is well-liked and often-used. And a number of 
people definitely want uniform function call syntax to be implemented so that it 
works for all types.

I don't see what's easy to go wrong with this syntax. It's quite 
straightforward. It's been around for quite a while. And it's well-liked. It's 
not going to be changed. The only question is whether it's ever going to be 
implemented for types in general.

- Jonathan M Davis