On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > Pelle Månsson wrote: >> >> On 01/28/2010 11:23 PM, Michiel Helvensteijn wrote: >>> >>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. So where's the consensus? Things seemed so clear when people >>>> were beaten with @property over their head. >>> >>> If I read the TLP correctly, @property seems not to be working correctly. >>> >>> @property (or any other notation marking property getters/setters) should >>> be >>> enforced. Functions that have it must only be invoked using property >>> syntax. Functions that don't have it must be called with parentheses. >>> That's the whole point. To give the designer of the class control over >>> how >>> it is used. >>> >>> The problem is people blurring the line between what's supposed to be a >>> function and what's supposed to be a property, by abusing property syntax >>> to invoke actions without parentheses. >>> >>> In reality, I believe there's not only a clear line between the two >>> intentions, there's a demilitarized zone. You just need to enforce it. >>> You >>> can't have your cake and eat it too. >>> >> >> I don't understand what any of this would improve. Is the byLine example >> less readable without the ()? Is it more bug prone? >> >> The only thing achieved as I can see is that every class designer makes up >> his own rules about which functions are property and which are not. If this >> is somehow enforced, it will become a guessing game about how to call >> no-argument functions. For what?
The "what" is the things listed in DIP4 (http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP4) Particularly these issues: int delegate() foo() { return delegate int(){ return 5; }; } // Is this an int or a delegate? auto x = foo(); // Is this a reference to foo, or a reference to the delegate returned by foo? auto y = &foo; --bb
