[phobos] phobos commit, revision 1689

[David Simcha]

When is @property going to start being enforced, i.e. when are you going to
no longer be able to call non @property functions w/o ()s or assign using
the = sign to a non- at property function?  I never really followed the
newsgroup discussion b/c I was happy with the old status quo and didn't
think Walter would give in, so I lost track of what exactly @property even
does.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com>wrote:

> On 06/23/2010 10:59 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com
>> <mailto:andrei at erdani.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    I think it should be a property. I followed the convention that
>>    stuff that doesn't change "this" is a property.
>>
>>    Andrei
>>
>>
>> But property setters are often supposed to change 'this'?
>>
>
> Well of course I was referring to getters.
>
>
>  Honestly I can
>> hardly see much utility in @property. For example, Q_PROPERTY in Qt adds
>> value. It is introspectable, can fire a notification when changed,
>> optionally shows up in the designer, is resettable to a default value
>> and more. Is @property only useful for disambiguating the case when a
>> function returns a callable?
>>
>
> On the same grounds, I opposed @property tooth and nail and now,
> unpleasantly enough, my worst scares are coming true: @property is a
> non-falsifiable sham, a convention defined for the sake of following it. I
> strongly believe the alternatives I proposed would have been vastly better.
>
>
> Andrei
>
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20100623/0ce96d83/attachment.html>