On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:08:22 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandf...@jhu.edu>
wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:19:09 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
There are several compiler bugs relating to array operations, and
almost all relate to this issue. I'd like to fix them, but I need
to know which way it is supposed to work.
The [] should be required. I worry that otherwise there will be
ambiguous cases that will cause trouble.
Excellent.
Glad we agree. An example is the C hack where if foo is a function,
then &foo as well as foo mean the address of the function. This little
ambiguity, originally meant as a convenience, has caused much grief.
In the same vein, probably it's time to bite the bullet and require
@property for parens-less function calls.
Andrei
Disagreed. I've really come to enjoy parens-less coding, though I know
others don't like it. But today both camps can write in their preferred
style and write libraries for each other. Either deciding on an opt-in
(@property) or opt-out(@!property) basis seems likely to A) kill the
other programming style or B) lead to a bunch of synaptic load on the
programmer as they try to remember which style each class uses.
As I've said before, I think a possible compromise to this is to allow
paren-less function calls when the return type is void. These functions
cannot be misinterpreted as properties.
I won't go over the other points again :)
-Steve
