Andrei Alexandrescu, el 2 de agosto a las 11:02 me escribiste:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> >I think it's funny that for a week, Andrei has been arguing against
> >throwing around new syntax to solve this problem, and that's exactly
> >what you guys have come up with. Really, how much more complicated
> >would this make the parser, compared to adding a new attribute?
>
> We couldn't find a good solution without adding new syntax, so this is now on
> the table. Adding syntax or keywords is the next thing to look at. I'd still
> be
> unsatisfied if:
>
> (a) there would be significant syntactic noise to defining a read-only
> property
>
> (b) we had to add a keyword
Againg, what about DIP6?
b) won' happen, even more, D could get rid of a *lot* of keywords if it
works out.
a) this not that bad, right?
@property bool empty() { return _len == 0; }
(we can use @prop if @property is too long)
--
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<o_O> parakenotengobarraespaciadora
<o_O> aver
<o_O> estoyarreglandolabarraporkeserompiounapatita
