On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:34:44 -0800, Jesse Phillips
<jessekphillip...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 08:35:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
1. Empty parens are optional. If there is an ambiguity with the return
value taking (), the () go on the return value.
As mentioned, this seems dangerous. I'd suggest requiring when there is
ambiguity. It still has generic problems, but it will never be silent.
4. No more @property.
I'm on the side that would miss optional parens if they died. In would
be nice if @property actually made a function behave like a field.
foo += bar;
It seems there are lots of complications around this? So yes kill
@property.
On another note,
To properly correct this situation we will break code. So before you get
started be sure to try out the new feature preview release approach :)
The problem is that the moment we start talking about @property the
optional parens people (colloquially referred to henceforth as "your
side") start jumping in and attacking us about how removing optional
parens would make your sides lives utter misery.
(Personally, i'd beg to differ, I work with C# UFCS every, freaking, day.
I don't even notice the extra parens any more. But most importantly, the
syntax is ambiguous to neither the compiler or myself, I know at a
subconscious level what I am looking at.)
However, the @property issue can be addressed without removing your sides
optional parens. Adam Ruppe is working on just such a fix right now.
Everyone just needs to relax and take a chill pill (or a shot of whiskey
if that's your thing).
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
