[phobos] Time to get ready for the next release

[Jonathan M Davis]

> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:14:22 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
> > <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:57:57 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
> > >> <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
> > >> 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> How about the amount of existing code it breaks? How about the fact
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> it breaks using the same function for both method chaining and with
> > >> >> property syntax?
> > >> > 
> > >> > Something like
> > >> > 
> > >> > auto b = a.prop1.prop2.prop3;
> > >> > 
> > >> > should work. I doesn't at present, but it should. There's a bug
> > >> > report on it.
> > >> 
> > >> What about auto b = a.prop1(5).prop2(6).prop3(7); ?
> > > 
> > > I'd consider that to be the same. It should work, but it doesn't.
> > > There's a
> > > bug report for it.
> > 
> > Ahem, so you'd consider auto b = a.prop1(7); valid code under strict
> > property rules?
> 
> Oh wait. You're right. I didn't read that right. No, that wouldn't be
> legal. That would be both getting and setting. Why would you even try and
> do that with a property, let alone with several chained together?

Oh. I suppose that that could be legal if the value of the property was 
callable with a single integer and that function returned a value. If so, that 
should be legal. But other than that, I can't think of why it would be legal 
to do that, or make any sense to for that matter.

- Jonathan M Davis