DIP23 draft: Fixing properties redux

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/4/13 2:10 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> It was my understanding that once a function is declared a property, it
> is meant to emulate a field. In such circumstance, there were talks
> about plain and simply not allowing taking the address of an @property
> function.
>
> 2 questions:
>
> 1. Was this proposal rejected, or have we just forgotten about it?

Well I at least haven't forgotten. Generally in D we don't want to 100% 
disallow doing something sensible.

> 2. What are the actual use cases for taking the address of a property
> function?
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, the "entire mess" of &a.b would be solved if we
> simply recognized it as "but you aren't allowed to take the address of
> the function b, so why have a syntax to support it anyways"? In such
> circumstance, "&a.b" == "&(a.b)" == "the address of the thing obtaining
> by running a.b"

Yes, if we disallowed address taking things would get a bit simpler.


Andrei