Possible @property compromise

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-01-30 17:26, TommiT wrote:

> I assume you mean something like this:
>
> struct S
> {
>      private T _t;
>
>      ref T get() { return _t; }
>
>      void set(T t) { ... }
> }
>
> The benefit of the above type of coding versus having a public T
> variable, is that you can change the implementation of S without
> changing S's interface. Perhaps I would like to change it to this (or
> whatever):
>
> private static T[5] tees;
>
> struct S
> {
>      private byte _idx;
>
>      ref T get() { return tees[_idx]; }
>
>      void set(T t) { ... }
> }

Sure, but I think that's what properties are for. We currently don't 
have that in D but I think it would be great if fields could be 
exchanged with methods without breaking the API.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg