On 01/28/2010 09:59 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:28:17 +0300, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:22:45 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
<destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:47:45AM -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 07:57 me escribiste:
> I need to put it for all front() and empty() declarations. By the
> way I decided that popFront() is not a property. I don't know why.
Because it denotes an action?
I don't think it is that simple - I see popFront; as an action all the
same as popFront();
Whether you use parentheses or not, it's not a property. The
statement of Andrei is that he doesn't know why it's not a property.
The simple reason is because it's an action.
Now, does popFront; look like an action? Yes. But that is not the
case being disambiguated. It is collateral damage. Because the
compiler doesn't understand English, it can't know whether to
disallow popFront; any more than an ambiguous term like read
...or, as in Andrei's example, 'empty'. In Java you'd write
isEmpty(), or even worse, getEmpty(). In D we now have the option of
declaring it a property, with little chance of people thinking it
actually empties anything.
-Lars
Great explanation, very convincing!
How about this:
foreach (line; stdin.byLine()) { ... }
vs.
foreach (line; stdin.byLine) { ... }
How do I choose?
Andrei
I say you don't, it works both ways as it is now. I say, let's not
remove this feature :)
@property should be for when you need to assign to it. Maybe.
