Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
You should read my reply to myself, though. It describes an ambiguity in
the approach. Several solutions are discussed. (Just translate them from
grouping to non-grouping solutions.)
My reader does not show that message.
How strange.
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=94712
Oh, I do see it. But that message predates your other message, the one I
was replying too.
To summarize:
bool empty
{
void set(auto value) { ... }
bool get() { ... }
}
I would really really prefer to not have two scopes in there. It makes
properties unduly arcane to define, particularly read-only properties.
They should be about as easy to define as regular methods.
Then in a later message you mention:
bool empty.get() { ... }
void empty.set(bool b) { ... }
which I like and which does not seem to have difficulties; the names
"get" and "set" will be never used as such.
Andrei
