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

[Artur Skawina]

On 01/25/13 08:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/25/13 2:12 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
>> On 01/24/13 21:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote:
>>>> Trying to make arguments you don't like go away and silencing the messenger
>>>> is your MO.
>>>
>>> Now that's what's called "ad hominem".
>>
>> No, it's not - it's just stating the facts; this was not the first such incident.
> 
> Of course it is. The definition is simple enough, e.g. from Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Hmm, I can see how you could view this as an ad hominem, given that definition,
but it's not meant to be one and actually isn't - it has no bearing on
the @property nor ()-less calls issues; this is just about the process.

Remember how you originally replied to my message, after removing everything
but one sentence, which was clearly both a summary of my subjective position
and deliberately phrased in a way to encourage at least some consideration wrt
$subject by others making a decision. This isn't a new discussion, there's no
need to restate the same arguments, from other threads, over and over again.
Your response didn't provide any counterargument nor opinion on the subject;
instead you chose to complain about the form and - I have no choice but to 
assume deliberately - misinterpret it. And asked me not to 'do that', in an
attempt to manipulate the discussion.
Crying "Ad Hominem!" now, after I point out that such tactics are not really
helping to foster discussion, won't make it one, sorry.

/I/ have no problem ignoring your comments, but others may not be as thick-skinned
or not view D from the same perspective, and not willing to deal with that kind of
arrogance. The number of D contributors is low enough, why drive potential ones away?


>> and the choice needs to stay with the callee. But the distinction is "sane/insane"
>> for a reason - there's judgment, taste and common sense involved.
>> Trusting every programmer to get it right won't work, unfortunately.
> 
> I'd say "sane/insane" is pushing it.

Normally, I'd probably agree, but in the context of removing @property, but not
implementing correct accessors nor enforcing calling syntax "insane" is appropriate.
It's "sane/insane", because absolute terms such as "right/wrong" would be too strong;
there is a large subjective component to it.

artur