Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Marianne Gagnon wrote:
> > 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
>
> I think void empty=(bool b) { ... } is a net win, which the forced bool
> empty=() diminishes. It would be great to keep the setter and find
> something as nice for a getter.
>
>
If { ... } becomes the new standard way of declaring a function, that's fine
with me; but if { ... } ended up being used only for properties, that would be
somewhat inconsistent
