On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 14:51:57 UTC, Vladimirs Nordholm wrote:
On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 14:20:49 UTC, Dennis wrote:
On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 13:57:14 UTC, Vladimirs Nordholm
wrote:
Is there any reason for me to add the @property tags for the
method?
A list of things the @property tag does can be found here:
https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#property-functions
This behavior is particularly useful for generic code:
"For the expression typeof(exp) where exp is an @property
function, the type is the return type of the function, rather
than the type of the function."
Before I knew about this, I wrote this template to get the
type of 'field', because typeof(field) would return 'int()'
instead of 'int' when it was a getter function without
@property.
```
template ReturnOrValueType(type)
{
static if (isSomeFunction!(type.field)) {
alias ReturnOrValueType = ReturnType!(typeof(type.field));
}
else {
alias ReturnOrValueType = typeof(type.field);
}
}
```
Ah! First time I read the docs I didn't understand the
typeof(exp) explanation, but yours made me understand that part.
Do you think I should I omit the @property tag, if the only
wanted behaviour is to set a value (`foo.bar = "baz";`) ?
Yes I would omit @proporty if you don't need it as it isn't
really useful at the moment.
There's a DIP to fix it and make it more powerful though:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/97
And if you are looking for @read, @write limitations the
accessors library might be interesting to you:
https://code.dlang.org/packages/accessors
