On 01/28/2013 08:59 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 00:56:41 UTC, Chad Joan wrote:
snip
The limitation this imposes is that
void foo(int a) {...}
void bar(int a, int b) {...}
cannot be called in this way:
foo = 2;
2.bar = 3;
snip
I have been following the properties discussion a bit and lack
the experience to really comment on much. However, looking at
your posting I couldn't help but ask one question.
You state that not allowing at statement like:
2.bar = 3;
is a 'limitation'. Was 'limitation' really the word you were
looking for?
I find such code rather baffling. Perhaps it has valuable uses
somewhere, which is why I am asking.
It sort of reminds me of Python where you can do something like:
' '.join( list_of_strings )
which is very cute and all, but the following, rather mundane
function call would do a better job of conveying to the reader
what is going on, using the same number of keystrokes:
join( list_of_strings, ' ')
Craig
I mean limitation in the mathematical sense.
It's a combination of syntax elements that are valid in current D, but
would no longer be valid if the D community were to desire a properties
solution that includes this condition.
If no one is harmed by this limitation, then it is still a "limitation",
and also a /useful/ limitation.
