Discussion Thread: DIP 1043--Shortened Method Syntax--Community Review Round 1

[Max Samukha]

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 11:02:03 UTC, bauss wrote:

> Yes it does, but not if both cases aren't supported.
>
> And you shouldn't return the value from a setter, it should be 
> void.
>
> Which looks better?
>
> ```
> int value() => _value;
> void value(int newValue) => _value = newValue;

Sorry, it doesn't look better to me. It looks as if the second 
function has an incorrect return type. It would look better if it 
was marked as a property setter and D handled property setters 
specially.

> ```
>
> Or
>
> ```
> int value() => _value;
> void value(int newValue) { _value = newValue; }
> ```
>
> The first case definitely looks better IMHO.
>
> And yeah as you said void could just be int, but it shouldn't. 
> The setter should be void.
>
> It is almost universally accepted that setters should __never__ 
> return anything and there's only one case where you might 
> return from a setter and that is in fluid programming where you 
> return the parent object to allow chaining.

>
> So it's irrelevant that it works as a work-around.

Are we discussing this proposal, which is about unifying named 
and anonymous function syntax? Changing the way D handles 
property setters is a separate issue.