@property

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On 05-Aug-12 18:32, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 August 2012 at 04:12:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> I'd be very surprised if all that many people compile with -property.
>
> Indeed. Sometimes I try it just to see what happens, and always the same
> results: it doesn't solve problems and complains about code.
>

+1

[snip]
>
> And now the UFCS map, filter, etc. chains and whatnot are just icing on
> the cake. Bearophile, I've seen you complain about the mess of
> parenthesis in std.algorithm before. With ufcs and template arguments,
> you can be rid of many of them. It is actually pretty beautiful, even to
> me.
>
> Do you really want to break that now?
>
>
> My position right now is @property has a strict syntax out of necessity.
> Stuff without @property should work the way it does now - thus
> minimizing broken code to that which already opted-in to @property
> (which generally does it right anyway), while keeping the status quo on
> the rest. It can turn out ugly, I'll agree, but it can be beautiful too
> and just plain isn't worth the code breakage either way.

Well in the end I think strict @property enforcement was meant to solve 
some corner cases (e.g. returning delegates from, and taking address of 
no-arg functions). But then it promptly killed at least one cool idiom 
(chaining & assignment in one name). Then once UFCS was finally working 
@property spoiled it (e.g. your algorithm examples).

So I'm with you - let non- at property work as before, and @property ones 
to be god damn properly enforced.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky