DIP23 draft: Fixing properties redux

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/04/2013 04:24 AM, TommiT wrote:
> On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 02:36:41 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 02/04/2013 03:23 AM, kenji hara wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, I can present a counterexample.
>>>
>>> struct S {
>>>     static int value;
>>>     static @property int foo() { return value; }
>>>     static @property void foo(int n) { value = n; }
>>>
>>> }
>>> void main() {
>>>     int n = S.foo;
>>>     S.foo = 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Should they be disallowed, as like module level properties?
>>>
>>> Kenji Hara
>>
>> Probably. (static essentially means module-level, but in a potentially
>> nested name space.)
>
> I disagree.

Well, it is what the proposal says.

> Static properties can be allowed because they're not
> ambiguous. The problem with module-level:
> @property void foo(int n) {}
> ...are the two interpretations of foo as either a setter taking an int
> or a getter property of int type. So, one of those interpretations must
> be disallowed. But, with static member properties, there aren't multiple
> interpretations.

You are right.