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

[Regan Heath]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:29:16 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 1/26/13 8:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2013-01-25 22:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> That's right with the amendment that we're looking for a solution, not
>>> pushing one. Even the title of the thread is a question.
>>>
>>> Clearly properties are good to have. In an ideal world we wouldn't need
>>> a keyword for them and we'd have some simple rules for determining
>>> property status (especially when it comes to writes). If syntactic help
>>> is necessary, so be it. We want to make the language better, not worse.
>>
>> It's always possible to avoid keywords in favor of syntax. Example:
>>
>> Declaring a getter:
>>
>> int foo {}
>>
>> Just as a regular function declaration but without the parentheses.
>>
>> Declaring a setter:
>>
>> void foo= (int value) {}
>>
>> Append an equal sign to the function name.
>
> This is interesting. I wonder how to make it work for UFCS functions  
> (which _do_ have one argument).

Do the c# thing and use 'this'? i.e.

int foo(this Person p) {}
void foo= (this Person p, int value) {}

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/