@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-01-24 14:41, deadalnix wrote:

> 3. @getter is an attribute. A function marked @getter is automatically
> executed : () is added automatically :
>      @getter void funName() {}
>      funName; // function get executed.
>      funName(); // Error, void is not callable.
>
> 4. @getter can be used as UFCS.
>     @getter void funName(T t) {}
>     T t; t.funName; // function gets executed.
>     funName(t); // Error, funName require 1 argument, 0 given.
>
> 5. @setter is an attribute. A setter method can *only* be used in rhs of
> an expression. The assigned value is used as argument.
>     @setter void funName(T t) {}
>     T t; funName = t; // function gets executed.
>     funName(t); // Error, funName must be used in an assign expression.
>
> 6. @setter can as well be used as UFCS :
>     @getter void funName(T t, U u) {}
>     T t; U u; t.funName = u; // function gets executed.
>     t.funName(u); // Error, funName must be used in an assign expression.

What about @property(getter) and @property(setter) instead? Otherwise we 
need two new built-in attributes.

> 8. method behave as functions :
>      class A { void foo() {} }
>      A a;
>      static assert(is(typeof(a.foo) : void delegate())); // Pass.
>      &a.foo; // deprecated NOOP for compatibility.
>      a.foo(); // call a.foo

The address operator wouldn't be needed to get a delegate for a method 
anymore?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg