Walter Bright wrote:
> Having optional parentheses does lead to unresolvable ambiguities. How
> much of a problem that really is is debatable, but let's assume it
> should be resolved. To resolve it, a property must be distinguishable
> from a regular function.
>
> One way is to simply add a "property" attribute keyword:
>
> property bool empty() { ... }
> property void empty(bool b) { ... }
>
> The problem is that:
>
> 1. there are a lot of keywords already
> 2. keywords are global things
>
> The alternative is to have a unique syntax for properties. Ideally, the
> syntax should be intuitive and mimic its use. After much fiddling, and
> based on n.g. suggestions, Andrei and I penciled in:
>
> bool empty { ... }
> void empty=(bool b) { ... }
>
> The only problem is when a declaration but not definition is desired:
>
> bool empty;
>
> but oops! That defines a field. So we came up with essentially a hack:
>
> bool empty{}
>
> i.e. the {} means the getter is declared, but defined elsewhere.
>
> What do you think?
It solvs the ambiguities so it would work, might be nicer syntaxes out their
but it solvs the main problem.
