Do we want functions to act as properties, or merely omit parens for ufcs/chaining?

eles eles at eles.com
Tue Jan 29 03:26:08 PST 2013


On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 11:13:19 UTC, jerro wrote:
> to the one used for functions. That way, you can avoid 
> verbosity and the need to use implicit parameters

What do you eran from that? Sparing "value" as a reusable 
identifier? You define a getter at the top of the class, then 
finding a setter three screens lower and you finnaly learn that 
the property is not that "read-only"?

I think the first step into better property 
definition/implementation/comprehension would be exactly that: to 
force the code of the getter and the code of the setter to stick 
together.

Yes, exactly at the user of a property I was thinking. That user 
is also a programmer, but he does not do the implementation of 
the property, just using it.

The confusion does not lie with that user, but it was sparked 
when the implementation decision was made, in the very heads of 
those who started implementing properties as 
just-another-function.

This confusion propagates from the implementors to the user, as 
the (usage) syntax issues are issues for the user.

It also does not help that, for the time being, the users of 
properties are also the implementors of properties. There is not 
much objectivity in this case.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list