Reddit: why aren't people using D?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:37:16 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> Actually, I've now come up with a counter-example for the idea of using
>> pure at all:
>
> That's right, lazy evaluation can't be pure. So, the question is is this  
> an important enough case to justify a whole new syntax?

Don't get lost in the pure discussion.  There are many reasons to have a  
dedicated property syntax, even for non-pure properties.

I don't think properties should be necessarily pure anyways.  How do you  
have a pure setter?  It's more of a convention that a property getter  
should not change the state of the containing entity, a pretty much  
non-enforcable convention.

That's not to say that you couldn't mark a property as const or pure, just  
that it shouldn't HAVE to be that way.

-Steve