Possible @property compromise

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/31/13 11:41 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:38:04 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/31/13 10:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 01, 2013 01:01:02 Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>>> I think his suggestions need implemented regardless of what we do
>>>> with @property. I think Walter just felt this would appease the
>>>> pro-property.
>>>
>>> Well, it doesn't even come close. For the most part, the
>>> pro- at property folks
>>> want explicit proprties, and that's precisely what Walter is
>>> proposing that we
>>> get rid of.
>>>
>>>> writeln = "hi" would not compile with Walters suggested changes.
>>>
>>> Only because it's variadic. Something like
>>>
>>> range.popFrontN = 7;
>>>
>>> _would_ compile. And that's just as bad. We need explicit setter
>>> properties in
>>> order to avoid letting assignment work with functions where it makes
>>> no sense
>>> for it to work.
>>
>> Under some proposals range.popFrontN = 7 would not compile because
>> there's no corresponding range.popFrontN that yields an int.
>
> I don't think this rule is good enough.
>
> You are inviting strange properties to invade your types, especially
> with the advent of UFCS.

I agree. Was just sayin'.

Andrei