>
> 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?
I liked the original idea... but this declaration syntax is a total can of
worms. Like others pointed out, would the compiler automatically turn all
functions with empty bodies into declarations? Would empty setters be
considered a declaration? What if I actually *want*
to use an empty body as definition? Or what if I accidentally leave a body
empty when I didn't want to?
Like someone else pointed out, existing keywords could be reused :
bool empty
{
in(bool value)
{
_my_empty = value;
}
out
{
return _my_empty;
}
}
I like this quite a bit. I never wrote any compiler, granted, but I don't
think it'd be that hard to implement - and doesn't introduce any new keyword.
Or, alternatively, if you really wish to keep them separate, bool empty= { ...
} isn't intuitive, as Andrei pointed out, but is already less error-prone than
the empty-body declaration idea I believe
