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

[Timon Gehr]

On 01/25/2013 03:09 AM, kenji hara wrote:
> ...
>
> @property ref int foo();
> auto x = &foo;   // x is a function pointer, or an address of returned
> value?
>

Address of returned value.

> This is the most sensible problem.
> (a) If typeof(x) should be a function pointer, we need to use a utility
> function to get int*.
>     ref identity(T)(ref T t) { return t; }
>     int* p1 = &(identity(foo));
>        // foo is evaluated to ref int in function argument,
>        // and identity gets through the reference.
>     int* p1 = &foo.identity;
>        // with UFCS, parentheses can be removed.
>
>     This is a real issue. In phobos, the ref-ness of front property is
> actually checked in std.range.moveFront.
>

This is a serious issue.

> (b) If typeof(x) should be a int*, we will lose the way to getting a
> function pointer of foo.
>     That is more serious than (a). If we adopt this rule, we will
> *really* get lost the way to distinguish property functions and raw data
> fields. (Note that: In current typeof(foo) already returns int. So
> AddressExp is only one way to getting (normal|property) function
> information by its type.) From the view of meta-programming, I think
> this makes a serious flaw.
>

We might add the necessary __traits to make up for it.