@property needed or not needed?

[Regan Heath]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:07:51 -0000, deadalnix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 20/11/2012 12:18, Timon Gehr a écrit :
>> On 11/20/2012 02:49 PM, Regan Heath wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:26:15 -0000, Adam D. Ruppe
>>> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 November 2012 at 12:44:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>>> Should this be allowed for functions that isn't marked with  
>>>>> @property:
>>>>>
>>>>> foo = 3;
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We should *only* be changing the way @property is implemented.
>>>> (Namely, actually implementing it!)
>>>>
>>>> Don't want to break existing code. The new changes must be opt in.
>>>
>>> Usually I'd agree but this is a case of a wart we should just remove
>>> IMO. The fix for breaking cases is simple, add @property.
>>>
>>>> If there's both an @property setter and a regular function, the
>>>> property should be used here.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But it's waay clearer whats going on if @property is required
>>> to call functions using this syntax.
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> @property T front(T)(T[] arr) { return arr[0]; }
>>
>> [1,2,3,4].front;
>>
>> front = [1,2,3,4];
>>
>
> I conclude that @property should be limited to member function or UFCS  
> calls. Otherwize, we get really weird stuffs going on.

Such was my assumption in this case :p

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/