Yet a new properties proposal

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:07:19 -0400, Dimitar Kolev 
> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:46:39 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
>>> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:59:38 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
>>> >> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> I don't see what advantages this has over other proposals.  
>>> What is
>>> >> >> wrong
>>> >> >> with a.a such that we have to resort to a#a?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -Steve
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > People are crying over compilers not know which is a property and
>>> >> which
>>> >> > is not.
>>> >>
>>> >> At definition time, not usage time.  I want the usage to be 
>>> identical to
>>> >> fields, otherwise, it's not as seamless.  This makes an important
>>> >> difference for generic code.
>>> >
>>> > What if the compiler just expanding this to well inlining. So a#a = 3
>>> > would just means a.a = 3 just that the compiler will have easier time
>>> > understanding this.
>>>
>>> If you specify a property at definition by doing int#a, then why do you
>>> also need to specify it's a property when calling it?  And if it's not
>>> necessary, then your proposal is no different than adding a keyword.  On
>>> those merits, it's fine with me if people think int #a is better than
>>> property int a, but I absolutely don't want to have to modify my code to
>>> call properties using a #.
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>> Since when is D 2.0 frozen so that we have to take care of old D 2.0 
>> code.
>>
>> This is not an accusation just a reminder. Hope ware not going for the 
>> mistakes of C++.
> 
> I understand that D2 is not frozen.  I don't want to call properties 
> with a#b instead of a.b in D2, D3, or even D4, unless you can show that 
> it provides some benefit.  From what I can tell, it does not.  Sorry.  I 
> don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think your proposal makes any sense 
> at all.  Maybe you can answer my first question -- why do you need to 
> call a property with a#b when you can call it with a.b?

I agree. The whole point of properties is that they are largely 
interchangeable with fields. If that's not an issue, we might as well 
use a.b() and call it a day.

Andrei