Possible @property compromise

[Zach the Mystic]

On Saturday, 2 February 2013 at 06:28:47 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 February 2013 at 06:04:01 UTC, TommiT wrote:
>> What do you suppose would happen if I wrote the following?
>>
>> struct A
>> {
>  <snip>
>>    static int otherFunction()
>>    {
>>      C cc;
>>      return cc.myMemberFunction();
>>    }
>
>  It would refuse to compile as a static function can't point to 
> an instance/parent. I'm convinced you should not be able to 
> return (or create an instance of) a nested struct outside of 
> it's level of control or ability to reference properly.
>
>  Had it not been static on the other hand...
>
>             int otherFunction()
>
>  cc has the same level as c, so the return would be equal to: 
> _a + _b + cc._c

... well, this function requires being called with instances of 
A, B, and C, so I believe it would error on that account. The 
only way to call this deeply nested thing would be with an 
instance of A, which makes sense, since it operates on a variable 
contained in A. It would have to look like:

A a;
int z = a.b.c.myMemberFunction();

... to work, I believe.