On 2010-01-29 12:56:43 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:23:24 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Consider:
struct Stack(T) {
T pop();
...
}
By your definition, pop() should be a property. It doesn't quite strike
me as an intuitive decision.
is pop's main purpose to fetch a value or to modify the stack? I'd say
the purpose is split equally, so it's not a function whose main purpose
is to fetch a value.
So now we're down to proportions, nuance, and where "main" goes. You
made my point. I win.
You win because Steven's definition is not good enough. I said before
that we should have a authoritative definition. If we really can't
define how a property should be defined after some reflection, then you
really win.
My definition is that a property gives access to an aspect of an object
and doesn't modify it (the getter is essentially logical-const). In
this case, 'pop' doesn't give you access to something in the stack, it
removes an element (that's an action) and give you the element. It's
pretty clear that 'pop' is used as a verb here, that should be enough
to decide it's a function.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
