Is @property implementable?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 13:49:40 Michel Fortin wrote:
> Consider that currently, using an array as a range is implemented this way:
> 
> 	int front(int[] array) {
> 		return array[0];
> 	}
> 
> 	int[] array = [1,2,3];
> 	auto e = array.front;
> 
> Currently, this work fine because the compiler treats "array.front" and
> "array.front()" as the same thing, they're both rewritten as
> "front(array)".
> 
> Now consider the world of the future where only functions marked with
> @property can use the property syntax, and only functions *not* marked
> with @property can use the function call syntax. Now, for "array.front"
> to work you'd have to label "front" with @property, like this:
> 
> 	@property int front(int[] array) {
> 		return array[0];
> 	}
> 
> The problem is that now, for "array.front" to work it'd have to be
> rewritten as "front = array", which does not make any sense.
> 
> So what to do? And also, what happens if you want to implement a setter
> for "array.front = 1"?

I would expect the compiler to be smart enough to combine the fact that you can 
call functions on arrays as if they were member functions and @property to allow 
you to deal with any property as if it were a member of the array. So, the fact 
that the property is declared external to the array should be irrelevant. It 
should work just the same as any property would on a user-defined type.

- Jonathan M Davis