Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:25:02 -0400, Michiel Helvensteijn
<m.helvensteijn.rem...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
So the poster who started this trail of the thread is assuming that
t.property.get()
identifies the property getter directly. But what if the return type of
t.property.get() contains a method get()? Since t.property is an
alis for
t.property.get(), Should t.property.get() map to:
...
That is the ambiguity.
I myself see great value in the ability to access the getter and setter
functions directly. But because of the ambiguity you described, this is
problematic for D.
Andrei sees 'get' and 'set' as nothing more than declaration-side
indications of the getter and setter. Not real functions. In that
case, the
ambiguity doesn't exist.
To alleviate possible confusion, it has been suggested that a space be
used,
not a dot, between the name of the property and get/set in the
declaration.
So your answer is, there is no ambiguity because it's not possible to
access the getter/setter directly? That poses a problem for existing
code which uses delegates to such functions. I'm not sure we want to
lose that ability.
-Steve
Back to the drawing board.
