DIP25 draft available for destruction

[Walter Bright]

On 2/6/2013 7:30 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> The limitation on address taking seriously impair the possibility of
> implementing @property properly to emulate a field.

Properties are always going to be subsets of fields. For example,

     @property int foo() { return 3; }

is never going to work with trying to get the address of 3. Trying to make it 
work would be a quixotic quest of dubious utility. I.e. I disagree that it is a 
serious impairment.


> It seems like a solvable problem, as scope can be explicited. But then, some
> address taking are back, and so the syntax problem around previous DIP isn't
> solved (But that is arguably a good thing as we should solve problems
> themselves, not symptoms).

The only time (now) that you can take the address of function return value is if 
that is a return by ref. So, if taking the address of a ref is disallowed, then 
the syntax is no longer ambiguous.