Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Steven
Schveighoffer<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:30:00 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What if the compiler allowed you to call functions as long as what you
typed was an unambiguous prefix of the function name
why don't we have a
wonderful time-saving feature like this? Because it would be a nightmare to
read.
...
So now C# has two ways of providing a readonly field. Doesn't quite look
like an example to follow.
Just like D!
Yes, that's right. readonly is analogous to const.
...
That's what I'm saying: if it could do anything, at least don't pretend
it's anything special. It's a function!
...
So would you argue that C# or D with operator overloading isn't
better because operators are just functions, why call them something else?
Bravo! Fine, rational arguments, Steve.
I don't think it's a good argument. Operators are functions with a
specific syntax, is all. D is not even pretending any different: it
simply rewrites the usual syntax into function calls. We should do the
same with properties.
Andrei
