[phobos] Time to get ready for the next release

[Robert Jacques]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:41:17 -0400, David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jonathan M Davis

[snip]

>> I know that there are a number of people on the list - particularly  
>> newer
>> posters - who fully expect @property to be strict and are surpised when  
>> it
>> isn't. And I see _zero_ problem with strong property enforcement as  
>> long as
>> the compiler isn't buggy with regards to properties (which it currently
>> is).
>> So, I'm 100% behind strict enforcement.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis

What about the fact that no two people can agree what should and shouldn't  
be a property? Or, more practically, that third party library A won't  
conform with organization B's coding policies? Or how about that an O(1)  
property which gets re-factored into a big expensive O(N) operation (i.e.  
see bug 5813) Or ranges/containers that may all have different mixes of  
function-like methods and field-like methods. Speaking of templates, what  
about how well/poorly opDispatch, etc compose with @property? Oh, and then  
there are entire articles against the @property solution to the  
field/method syntax problem in computer science literature (look up the  
Uniform access principle used in Ruby and Eiffel).

Also, surprise isn't necessarily a bad thing. Methods-as-properties  
surprised me I received when I first started using D and it put a massive  
smile of joy onto my face in the process.