On 01/29/2010 12:01 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Pelle M�nsson 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();
A delegate. Same as auto x = foo;
// Is this a reference to foo, or a reference to the delegate returned by foo?
auto y =&foo;
A reference to foo.
I feel this is obvious. Maybe I am wrong.
