new DIP5: Properties 2

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Chad
J<chadjoan at __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Chad
>> J<chadjoan at __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nono, I don't think that's really what's being suggested.  It'd work
>> more like operator overloading.  "opAdd" and the like aren't parsed
>> any different from any other functions, and they're not represented
>> differently inside the compiler; they're just functions with "magical"
>> names.  Similarly, opGet_foo would be a normal function in any way,
>> and its name would only be significant in the case of "obj.foo", which
>> *could* be rewritten as "obj.opGet_foo()" (or "obj.opSet_foo").
>>
>
> Op overloading is a bit different since the identifier never changes.
> What you are matching is always one of opAdd, opSub, opNeg, etc.  But
> when matching this there are an infinite number of permutations:
> opGet_foo, opGet_bar, opGet__, opGet_a, ..., opGet_aa, opGet_ab, etc.
>
> I'm not saying it's hard to do, just that it looks to me like it defeats
> its own virtues.

I'm just saying it doesn't require any change to the grammar, is all.

>> Also, if you think D can be parsed without any information from the
>> semantic pass?  I've got news for you..
>
> Yeah, that's still not a good reason to make a bad thing worse :/

I wasn't suggesting that ;)