Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:08:58 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
However, when I see:
x.empty;
I can't tell what is implied here.
You can. In either C# or D language it could execute arbitrary code
that you better know what it's supposed to do. D simply doesn't make
it "bad style" as C# stupidly does.
still not getting it, are you...
Just forget it, I think this is a lost cause, I keep making the same
points over and over again, and you keep not reading them.
I do read them and understand them. I mean, it's not rocket surgery. At
the end of the day you say "x = a.b;" looks more like sheer access
because that's what happens for fields already. Then you say "a.b()" in
any context looks more like an action because it's clear that there's a
function call involved. But your arguments are not convincing to me, and
in turn I explained why. What would you do if you were me?
Andrei
I totally agree with Steven's arguments (and have enjoyed reading the
discussion).
I think the reason he says you're "not getting it" is because your
examples tend to be "a.b" whereas his examples tend to be "a.empty". In
your examples, you've stripped away the distinct function/field names
and presented the argument from the compiler's perspective: in terms of
arbitrary symbols that might either perform a pointer dereference or a
function invocation.
Steve's arguments, on the other hand, are all from the perspective of
the programmer. The parentheses following the identifier act as
*punctuation* that clarify intent.
Good?
Good.
--benji
