Chad J wrote:
Miles wrote:
Both the getter and the setter should return an rvalue. Properties exist
so that they are interchangeable with real member variables. Something
that is possible with member variables MUST also be possible with
properties, in a transparent way for any code outside the class.
I agree, though let's not fool ourselves, there is at least one corner case:
property int foo
{
get{ ... }
set{ ... }
}
auto bar =&foo;
what happens when someone writes this?
I've tried this in C# and it is simply forbidden. I am OK with this,
though I'd love it if there was a better way.
that's solvable. as I noted in a previous post, a property seems to me
to be mainly syntax sugar for a struct like in the following snippet:
class A {
struct Prop {
int internal;
int opCall() { return internal; }
void opAssign(int value) { internal = value; }
}
public Prop prop;
...
}
void main() {
auto a = new A;
int num = a.prop;
a.prop = 9;
auto foo = &a.prop; // what happens here?
...
}
foo can be the address of "prop" (struct instance) in the above code.
this means that:
*foo = ...; is translated to *foo.opAssign(...);
and similarly: auto bar = *foo; will be auto bar = *foo.opCall();
the only issue here is what will be the type of foo if D provides the
syntax sugar for all this. maybe define such types as special property
types - for a given property "foo" in class "Bar" the type of the
property will be "Bar.__fooPropertyType".
