On 02/10/2013 01:53 PM, Robert wrote:
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 13:40 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
Why does this justify a keyword? I think Walter's initial proposal of
getting rid of @property has more merit than this.
Read the DIP?
Stop trolling.
It is about encapsulation
Perfectly possible without DIP26 and encapsulation can be violated using
@property as given in DIP26 just as easily as without it.
and making set functions
callable with = in order to be compatible with ref returning functions:
(Compatible from set function to ref returning function, not the other
way round)
setter(2);
and for the more expressive syntax:
a=something;
That's not more expressive.
instead of
You mean as well as.
a(something);
and so that tools can easily extract what's a property. (For enabling
access from scripting languages for example, like Qt does.)
Use UDAs.
The one reason why we can not drop it, is that = calls the set function
on properties.
So does ( ). And both are the case already.
The reason why we should not, is that having such a cool
straight forward feature for providing proper no-boilerplate
Boilerplate can be trivially automated.
encapsulation seems valuable in an OOP enabled language.
