On 2010-01-29 13:57:06 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
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.
Be careful here, don't give Andrei hard criteria for declaring victory ;)
"some reflection" is a hard criteria now? :-)
But my larger point was that convention is convention, whether you use
parentheses to designate what a function does, or the symbol name
itself. Deciding the convention is liable to suit some and not
others. Some people hate the flat terse names of Phobos' modules.
Does that mean those people are wrong? Does that mean Walter and
Andrei are wrong? The only thing that is wrong here is deciding there
is exactly one right rigid way to designate what should and should not
be a property.
Andrei wanted a good enough guideline so I gave one to him. We need a
guideline if we hope for some consistency. Hopefully this guideline
will be used through Phobos and this will set the example.
I think we should have a definition of property convention for Phobos,
but I don't think it needs to be the *only* way people use properties
in their own projects. In fact, it can't be because there is no
english (or whatever language you use) interpreter in the compiler.
If someone want to diverge from the guideline, then that's his choice.
It's pretty much like operator overloading: you can use it the intended
way, or you can build boost::spirit.
It's not like the compiler will ever be able to enforce this kind of
thing, so there'll always be room for abuse, if you feel like it.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
