Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:hjt1ea$306...@digitalmars.com...
Good summary. I now wonder, could one overload based on @property?
auto a = container.empty; // check for emptiness
container.empty(); // take the trash out
!
Why would that ever enter into anyone's mind? You already can't overload on
a member's type, you already can't overload on function's return type, and
you certainly can't overload on a mere decorator. There's no issue here.
Anyway, I have one more comment about the example:
foreach (line; stdio.byLine) { ... }
vs.
foreach (line; stdio.byLine()) { ... }
Steve said, byLine fetches a range off stdio. In fact it's not - it's an
opApply() based loop. That already muddies the waters. But I have another,
bigger concern. When I think of a property, I think I fetch it and it
can't go back and modify its originator. Like if I do:
auto x = y.length;
I don't expect to later mess with x and change y through it.
I'm sure an inventive mind could find an argument against this but if I
try to be honest with myself I'd think it's tenuous to have the tail
property wag the dog object.
If you see a problem with being able to do this:
auto dog = new Dog();
auto tail = dog.tail;
tail.wag();
Nonono, the expression "tail wagging the dog" means that the actual tail
stands still and the dog is shaking like a tail.
Andrei
