On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Ary Borenszweig<a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote: > Rainer Deyke escribió: >> >> Ary Borenszweig wrote: >>> >>> The "property" just signals that the function is a property. But it's >>> still a function and all of the previous rules that existed are still >>> valid. >> >> My problem with the 'property' syntax: >> >> Possibility 1: the property still acts like a function, so you can still >> do 'x.a()' when you mean 'x.a'. >> >> Possibility 2: the property does not act like a function, so you can no >> longer get a delegate to the property getter. >> >> Possibility 3: the property sometimes acts like a function and sometimes >> not, and you haven't defined the distinction. > > None of those are correct. See Jarrett's post. > > property { > int x() { } > int x(int a) { } > } > > auto a = x; // OK > auto a = x(); // Wrong > x = 2; // OK > x(2); // Wrong
And furthermore, I mentioned that &obj.foo would always get the address of the member 'foo' from 'obj', even if 'foo' was a property. But hey, it's not like it matters anyway. We're pissing in the ocean.