Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Michel Fortin]

On 2008-10-02 01:25:34 -0400, "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> said:

> My first thought is what is the formal definition
> for what should be a struct and what should be a class.

Hum, I think I forgot to answer that part.

The reason I say we need a formal definition is so we can actually 
imply things from something being a property. Pure and nothrow 
functions are (or will) be compile-time checked against a definition of 
what they should be: these offer garanties, which in turn add value to 
the user who know what it does. If we can't imply anything from them, 
properties offer no real value over mere functions since authors will 
decide what is a property based on the expectations they expect their 
users to have.

To be frank, I don't expect we can agree on a formal definition. If we 
try and that is indeed the conclusion, it'll prove my point that you 
just can't imply anything from something being a property except the 
vague idea that the author thought it should be one according to his 
own definition.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/