@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

Johannes Pfau nospam at example.com
Thu Jan 24 11:45:35 PST 2013


Am Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:51:32 -0500
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>:
> 
> No. The complications come from the fact that (a) nobody could agree 
> what should be a @property and what shouldn't;

There are only 2 kinds of programmers: Those who read the C# guidelines
for properties and those who didn't. Seriously, I never found it
difficult to decide if something should be a property, the C#/.NET folks
have pretty clear rules.

> (b) @property adds
> noise for everybody for the sake of a corner case (functions
> returning delegates); 

Partially true, although the real question is whether the additional ()
are really noise or actually useful. A hardcore C programmer (wants to
see every function call) and a ruby developer could probably have a long
discussion about that.

>(c) the @property discipline failed to align
> itself in any way with better code quality.

It's hard to verify if code quality changed if the feature isn't
properly implemented. Even if it was properly implemented comparing
code quality probably isn't easy.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list