Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message > > news:h53g3i$el...@digitalmars.com... > >> bool empty { ... } > >> void empty=(bool b) { ... } > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > I think that if D starts to make a habit of aping the ugly C++ approach to > > adding new features (as this does), then we may as well just use C++. > > Let's not forget that C++ got very conservative about adding keywords > after a keyword spree (class that is essentially same as struct, > namespace, xyz_cast, oh yes typename, and, or, not plus other useful > names that I probably forgot). We don't want to get there. > > > Andrei
I understand your point of view, but I am afraid that using an awkward syntax makes things difficult to understand. However, I could certainly live with the current proposal. But this has to do that I'm not afraid of symbolic ways to achieve something. Others might find it more difficult. I think that a setter and a getter are two different things, but I would avoid to have an inconsistent property, such as setting an int and getting a bool, or something similar. Perhaps a compiler check could intercept? But I think I can do it with the keywords that we already have in our possession: bool in empty { } bool out empty { } Although perhaps this could be argued against, as in and out are used for contract programming. But this clearly is a different use.