Accessors, byLine, input ranges

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-01-29 13:57:06 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:

>> You win because Steven's definition is not good enough. I said before  
>> that we should have a authoritative definition. If we really can't  
>> define how a property should be defined after some reflection, then you 
>>  really win.
> 
> Be careful here, don't give Andrei hard criteria for declaring victory ;)

"some reflection" is a hard criteria now? :-)

> But my larger point was that convention is convention, whether you use  
> parentheses to designate what a function does, or the symbol name 
> itself.   Deciding the convention is liable to suit some and not 
> others.  Some  people hate the flat terse names of Phobos' modules.  
> Does that mean those  people are wrong?  Does that mean Walter and 
> Andrei are wrong?  The only  thing that is wrong here is deciding there 
> is exactly one right rigid way  to designate what should and should not 
> be a property.

Andrei wanted a good enough guideline so I gave one to him. We need a 
guideline if we hope for some consistency. Hopefully this guideline 
will be used through Phobos and this will set the example.

> I think we should have a definition of property convention for Phobos, 
> but  I don't think it needs to be the *only* way people use properties 
> in their  own projects.  In fact, it can't be because there is no 
> english (or  whatever language you use) interpreter in the compiler.

If someone want to diverge from the guideline, then that's his choice. 
It's pretty much like operator overloading: you can use it the intended 
way, or you can build boost::spirit.

It's not like the compiler will ever be able to enforce this kind of 
thing, so there'll always be room for abuse, if you feel like it.

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