On 02/06/2013 02:20 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:39:55 -0500, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
As my posts in the DIP23 thread have been left unanswered, I have
prepared a counter proposal for DIP23 during the last hour.
Everything DIP23 addresses is specified in the two short sub-sections
"Optional parens" and "@property: basic design".
Those in favour of what was called "semantic rewrites" in the DIP23
thread should probably read on further.
All parts of this proposal are independent of DIP24 (which Andrei is
preparing).
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP23_Counter_Proposal
There are almost no examples yet, but in case it is not clear how some
case would be handled, feel free to ask.
(Also feel free to fix the formatting.)
Has my vote. For what it's worth :)
Thanks! :)
The full proposal or just the basic design part? (I think the full
"semantic rewrite" idea may have some issues regarding excessive
postblit/destruction, so I am not entirely sure if it is a good idea,
but it was requested.)
One thing that should be clarified, you should explicitly say "member
function (static or instance)" instead of just member function. The
"optional this" kind of takes care of it, but you have to read it
carefully to get that. I think it should be more straightforward.
-Steve
Done. Another thing that was not specified yet was what the compiler is
supposed to do when it encounters overloads where some are @property and
some are not. (I have added "It is illegal to overload
@property-qualified functions against non-@property-qualified functions.")
