On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:25:01 +0200, Jonathan M Davis
<jmdavisp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 19, 2010 13:42:51 Philippe Sigaud wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 22:06, Simen kjaeraas
<simen.kja...@gmail.com>wrote:
> template hasSetter(alias func) if (isCallable!(func)) {
>
> enum hasSetter = isProperty!(func) &&
>
> is( typeof( (){ func = ReturnType!(func).init; } ) );
>
> }
In that case, for the second func, the one you call ReturnType on, how
does
the compiler knows it must take the ref uint one (the getter) and not
the
void func() one?
Philippe
I don't think that you're supposed to be able to have a getter property
returning a ref at the same time that you have a setter property with
the same
name. It certainly sounds like it should be a bug in any case.
- Jonathan M Davis
I suppose it would be seen as a bug because it possibly circumvents the
getter/setter
philosophy (If you return the internal value anyway).
