Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
So we can overload on @property-ness?
No.
I.e. this works
struct S
{
@property
float x() { return 1.0f; }
float x() { return 2.0f; }
}
void main()
{
S s;
writefln("%s", s.x); // writes 1.0
writefln("%s", s.x()); // writes 2.0
}
That just looks wrong.
Ok, so you can't have both dynamic properties and dynamic methods with
this. One or the other, your pick.
Seems like an unfortunate limitation.
--bb
It's a limitation similar to not having a field and a method share the
same name. It avoids a number of awkward questions such as figuring the
meaning of &s.x.
I agree. While the compiler currently doesn't check for mixing up
properties and methods, I intend to make it do so. I can't see any
justification for allowing it.
