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

[Adam Wilson]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:45:44 -0800, Adam D. Ruppe  
<destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 21:41:58 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> The problem is that optional parens introduce ambiguity in relation to  
>> what is a property versus a function from the compilers prospective.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> struct Thing {
>     int foo() { return 0; } // method
>     int bar; // data field
>     @property int baz() { return 0; } // data field
> }
>
> Thing t;
> t.bar = 10; // this is a data field because it is
>      // declared as "int bar" above,
>      // not because I didn't use parens down here
>
> t.foo; // this is a function call because t.foo is a function
>
> t.baz; // this is a data field because i declared
>         // "@property int" above, not because I left off parens here
>
> t.bar(); // error, type int has no call method
>
> t.baz(); // error, type int has no call method

Right, this conversation is about removing @property, which invalidates  
your argument by turning the data into a function, which is what we want  
to avoid. Also you might want to run your examples before posting them.  
t.baz() is NOT an error, which incidentally why the ambiguities I  
mentioned exist and need to be quashed.

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