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

Adam Wilson flyboynw at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 13:40:28 PST 2013


On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:34:45 -0800, Adam D. Ruppe  
<destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 21:20:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> We wouldn't have all of these problems if we'd just
>> gone with a C#-esque property design
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/w86s7x04(v=VS.80).aspx
>
> "To the user of an object, a property appears to be a field, accessing  
> the property requires exactly the same syntax."
>
>
> Say it with me: properties are DATA FIELDS. Function syntax has NOTHING  
> to do with them!
>
> We could change function syntax to require you to draw out some ASCII  
> art of a running cat.... and it shouldn't affect properties one bit.
>
> Optional parens is a matter of function syntax. Properties are data  
> fields, so function syntax doesn't matter to them.

The problem is that optional parens introduce ambiguity in relation to  
what is a property versus a function from the compilers prospective. So  
they are a matter of functional call syntax in that they are non-trivial  
for the compiler to deduce between the two.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list