Uniform Function Call Syntax(UFCS) and @property

[Jim]

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

> 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


This @property thing where:

      if(t.empty);

is translated to

      if(empty(t));


looks a lot like reversed functional composition in mathematics where:

      fun.gun();

would be translated to

      gun(fun());

if
   fun: X -> Y
and
   gun: Y -> Z

(I say reversed because it's usually written in the other order, like this g ∘ f, that is g /circle/ f.)

So, what do you think about this translation? Although it is the same type of transformation, but I wouldn't call this @property because it isn't a property _of_ something.