DIP26 reworked
deadalnix
deadalnix at gmail.com
Sun Feb 17 04:39:20 PST 2013
On Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 08:35:44 UTC, Robert wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 04:18 +0100, deadalnix wrote:
>> It still introduce limitation for very poor reasons. You
>> assumed people didn't understood you DIP but in fact, people
>> did.
>
> Could you please explain what about the DIP is a limitation and
> how it
> affects you in practice?
>
> Maybe people understood it correctly, but I still don't
> understand what
> people don't like. So if you could explain how the DIP affects
> your code
> and why you don't like that, this would really help me to
> understand
> what the problem is.
>
> Thanks!
I'm sorry this is reversed logic. You introduce limitation (IE no
UFCS setter for instance) it is up to you to justify the tradeoff.
Secondly, I still think this proposal is bad for getter as they
are now both bad function and bad properties. For instance
typeof(a) == int and typeof(&a) == function is really bad. Plus
it cascade into all kind of possible weird cases. What about
ternary operator ? Coma expressions ?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list