On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:37:16 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Actually, I've now come up with a counter-example for the idea of using
pure at all:
That's right, lazy evaluation can't be pure. So, the question is is this
an important enough case to justify a whole new syntax?
Don't get lost in the pure discussion. There are many reasons to have a
dedicated property syntax, even for non-pure properties.
I don't think properties should be necessarily pure anyways. How do you
have a pure setter? It's more of a convention that a property getter
should not change the state of the containing entity, a pretty much
non-enforcable convention.
That's not to say that you couldn't mark a property as const or pure, just
that it shouldn't HAVE to be that way.
-Steve
