Le 19/11/2012 00:45, thedeemon a écrit :
On Monday, 19 November 2012 at 08:23:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2012 09:16:29 Rob T wrote:
My guess is that if @property gets enforced, we'll see a lot of
functions with empty parameter lists being defined as @property
for the sole reason to get rid of having to type in the ().
Which completely violates the concept of a property in the first
place. It's
intended to be an abstraction for a variable. Using @property just to
get rid
of parens would be like naming types with verbs instead of nouns. It's
completely backwards.
- Jonathan M Davis
I very much like the combination of UFCS, ranges and parens-free style
which allows writing code like
iota(0, 1000000).map!(to!string).retro.take(50).retro[10].writeln;
So I like Andrei's idea to force @property only for those functions
where it's absolutely necessary to fight ambiguity.
With opDispatch and clear semantic, the following is doable :
iota(0, 1000000).map!(to!string).retro.take(50).retro[10].writeln();
No need for an ambiguous situation where function get called implicitly.
