On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:23:44 -0400, John C <johnch_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
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.
Yes, those are two notations for the same thing, and they have the same
problem. Let me demonstrate:
--------------------------------------------------
struct S {
int get() { return 42; }
};
struct T {
S _s;
S property.get() { return _s; }
void property.set(S s) { _s = s; }
}
T t;
auto X = t.property.get();
--------------------------------------------------
What is the type of X? It can be either S or int, depending on how D
handles
the situation.
The ambiguity is in the possibility to directly reference the getter
and
setter methods. In that other subthread (the older one) I listed some
possible solutions.
The first is to make such a program an error.
The second is not to allow a direct reference to a getter/setter (so X
is an
int).
The third is to let the getter/setter overshadow S members (so X is an
S).
I see. My view is that .get and .set are simply symbolic placeholders,
but indeed some may get confused.
Andrei
Does the ambiguity go away if we replace the '.' with a space?
Declaration:
bool empty get();
void empty set(bool);
Declaration:
bool empty get() { return empty_; }
void empty set(bool b) { empty_ = b; }
The ambiguity of declaration, not the ambiguity of usage, unless you want
to use the space to denote the usage also?
-Steve
