aarti_pl Wrote: > Hello! > > This is just another reminder about ongoing voting about properties: > > http://www.igsoft.net/dpolls/index.php > > Current results: > > * about 68% of responders want to have special syntax for properties > * from people wanting new syntax most people want C# syntax (26 votes) > and then almost ex-aequo syntax with "property" keyword (25 votes) > * seems that only one person from 88 voters like opGet_<property> syntax > * quite a big group of responders (~32%) wants just fix problems in > existing property syntax > * 60% of people (but only 75 voters) want to remove possibility to omit > parentheses from function call. > > > ---- > Comments: > > I think that these results are already quite representative, but poll > should be open till tomorrow. So there is still chance to vote. > > > There appeared other proposals from time where poll was created. If you > like something other than options in poll, then I think you should vote > for "I want other syntax than above" option. > > > Personally I don't like so much C# syntax because of magic "value" > variable, which refers to property value used in setter. There is > another place in D where such a magic values appears: it is in variadic > parameters functions. IMHO such a magic parameters could stay if there > would be general syntax for getting compile time/runtime parameters of > functions. In such a case there would be no more "magic" in language but > rather clear rules how to read function parameter values using reflections. > > Currently my choice would be something like proposal in DIP6 > (attributes). Using '@' at the beginning of attributes could be also > used in another place: in imports it could be used to escape keywords, > so that following would be possible: > -- > import s...@traits; //then we could remove underscores from __traits > import d...@for.masses; > -- > It's most general way of annotating source code with special compiler > understandable meanings. Looking at result of poll & also seeing many NG > posts I believe that most of D community prefers generality over > one-time hackish solutions. And that's something to think about it... :-) > > > It seems that almost no one likes "ugly" functions with underscores and > messing operator names with property names. I am not so surprised about > underscores at all: it was common practice in C++, but it's not so > common in other modern languages. But then why in D we have so many of > them although no one really likes it (__traits, foreach_reverse, > _argptr, _arguments)? > > > And finally: why polls are not integral part of digitalmars web page? It > took me only one hour to set up this poll... > > > BR > Marcin Kuszczak > (aarti_pl)
Oops, I got the only one "keep things as they are now" vote haha. I meant to vote for the one with resolved +=. Took you an hour to set it up? Did you have to code it from scratch?