Proposal request: explicit propreties

[Koroskin Denis]

Agree. I have seen that both syntaxes are used (at some third party  
library) and I believe it is an inconsistency.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:21:19 +0400, Ary Borenszweig <ary at esperanto.org.ar>  
wrote:

> Currently properties can have these forms:
>
> Getter:
> -------
> Type property() {
>    // ...
> }
>
> Setter:
> -------
> void property(Type type) {
>    // ...
> }
>
> The problem is, the user can use them as functions or as properties.  
> This is ok from the compiler point of view, but the code looks ugly if  
> it doesn't make sense, like:
>
> writefln = 5;
>
> Further, if you want a function to be only used with property syntax,  
> you can't. Why would you wan't that? Because if you have
>
> class Foo {
>
>    int property() {
>      //
>    }
>
> }
>
> and then you decide to change it to
>
> class Foo {
>
>    int property;
>
> }
>
> for some reason, code that used Foo.property() won't compile anymore.
>
> I suggest marking properties as such like this:
>
> getter Type property() {
>    // ...
> }
>
> setter void property() {
>    // ...
> }
>
> "getter" and "setter" are attributes, just like "public", "static", etc.  
> The compiler only uses them to validate correct syntax usage. If they  
> are applied to any other declaration that is not a function, an error is  
> reported.
>
> Finally, there is another reason for wanting to mark functions as  
> properties: when you do autocompletion in an IDE, and it suggests you a  
> function, it can't know whether to autocomplete it as a function or as a  
> property. A solution could be writing something in the ddoc of that  
> function, but since there's no standard for this, each IDE will invent  
> it's own.
>
> Of course, this is not backwards compatible, so it should be a D2  
> feature.
>
> What do you think?