Editions Ideas

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/25/25 04:56, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 25/12/2025 4:51 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 12/25/25 02:25, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>> On 25/12/2025 1:04 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2025 at 18:10:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2025 at 15:29:18 UTC, Kapendev wrote:
>>>>> What I'd specifically like to do with `@property`, but note that I 
>>>>> have tried and failed to implement it twice over the years, so 
>>>>> don't hold your breath, is, in order of priority:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Your list looks good; one thing I'd add is that if you have 
>>>> `@property ref int foo()` then `&foo` should get you an `int*`.
>>>
>>> Please do an ideas thread on what is wanted.
>>>
>>> As of right now, what I consider "fixing @property" to mean is removal.
>>>
>>
>> That would clearly be referred to as "removing @property", so you are 
>> misunderstanding what was said.
> 
> I didn't misunderstand it.
> ...

You can't fix something by removing it, it's an alternative action.

> What one person consider fixing @property isn't the same thing as what 
> others think fixing @property is.
> ...

I think there is a relatively canonical answer to what that means and a 
little bit of thought and experience with the shortcomings of the 
existing design easily reveals it.