Kagamin wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I know you said you didn't really like the idea of having to name
your range's empty function 'opGet_empty'.
Correct. I'd rather try to disambiguate the rather rare case when a
property returns a delegate etc. For me, I get a breath of fresh
air whenever I get to not write "()". I can't figure how some are
missing it.
It's agains C look and feel to call function without braces. It's not
a problem to write code. It's a problem to read and understand it,
isn't it? Isn't current programming techniques development aimed to
ease maintenance?
Well there are quite a few other things that are arguably against C look
and feel, such as the scope statement. I've never had a problem
understanding code because of lacking "()", and I never ever write them.
The property attribute also has the nice property (heh) that you
can call the property setters and getters either as properties or
as functions (i.e. "r.empty" or "r.empty()"). Basically, the
behavior would be *exactly* as it is now, except you'd have to
explicitly state with which functions it would be legal.
I guess I'd rather not have to specify that. I'd do that on all of
my functions that don't take parameters. To me that's syntactic
noise and an unnecessary special case.
r.empty returns an empty instance of a range (especially makes sense
for dummy objects). r.empty() empties the range. It's not quite good
if your code has such an ambiguity.
Actually r.empty() does not empty the range :o).
Andrei
