Uniform Function Call Syntax(UFCS) and @property

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday 03 March 2011 21:44:20 kenji hara wrote:
> 2011/3/4 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:
> > On Thursday, March 03, 2011 14:07:30 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:56:45 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
> >> <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Conceptually, a property makes no sense unless it's a property _of_
> >> > something.
> >> 
> >> This is your opinion, not fact.  It is a property of the program/global
> >> namespace/module whatever you want to call it.
> > 
> > Per the definition of the word property, a property must be property _of_
> > something. Anything else would violate the definition of the word (not
> > that programming has ever held itself all that firmly to English
> > definitions). You can certainly argue that a global property is a
> > property of a module, at which point it _does_ make sense in the sense
> > that it is then a property _of_ the module.
> > 
> > However, I definitely think that that's pushing it. Modules are really
> > only organizational entities, not things that you deal with directly in
> > the code. And
> 
> I can basically agree with you. But that reason can not limit the
> design of the module.
> Some of D users may consider a module as a singleton. We can't prohibit it.
> 
> > if you have a "property" of a module, then it's more like treating
> > @property purely as an abstraction of a variable rather than really
> > being a property of something. At that point, I'd almost argue that the
> > annotation should have been @variable instead.
> 
> I still have the opposite viewpoint with you. A "property" of a module
> should be annotated
> with @property.
> 
> > Regardless, I'd still argue that @property shouldn't be allowed at the
> > module level as long as it's going to create ambiguities. And adding
> > extra rules or syntax to make it unambiguous as Kenji is suggesting
> > seems like overkill.
> 
> Current @property annotation does not have enforcement. When this has
> been improved
> in the future, the way annotating ’this' on UFCS will be also necessary.

Only if you allow functions which are "properties" of modules.

- Jonathan M Davis