On 12.12.2011 16:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/12/11 9:09 AM, torhu wrote:
On 12.12.2011 15:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/12/11 6:24 AM, torhu wrote:
save being a property is a stupid inconsistency.
I'm not so sure.
Andrei
Why? As far as I can tell, it's inconsistent with what properties are
used like in other programming languages.
Why?
Saving something is an action,
which to me is a different concept.
So if we called .save .state or .current things would be any different?
Yes, completely. The whole property concept is basically a naming
convention. Except that parentheses are now involved.
x = obj.foo(); // do the foo thing, then return something
x = obj.bar; // get bar
obj.bar = 42; // set bar
x = obj.save; // get save... hm, that doesn't sound right
If it was called currentState
instead, that's what I'd call a property.
Ah. So now we're wasting time not on @property (as I'd predicted), but
instead on what _names_ are suitable to work with it. I rest my case.
Making something a property gives it certain connotations that break
when it's called 'save'. That you can save the state of the range is a
property, if you will. But the action of doing so is not a property.
People are going to be surprised when save() doesn't compile. Isn't
there something called the principle of least surprise?
I think we should only worry about surprising the uninitiated with how
poorly designed the whole @property thing is.
I'm not trying to defend @property, I think it adds about as much pain
as it does gain. But it's there, and your ranges are using it :)
