On 13/12/11 10:17 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 December 2011 at 21:10:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There's a phrase in Romanian that quite applies: "From the lake into
the well".
I believe the English version is "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" :)
Inconsequential space-filler opinion: I am OK with @property, mainly
because it's a common feature among PLs, it's better than nothing, and
don't know better solutions.
In my opinion, it's not better than nothing.
What it gives you:
1. A bit of syntactic sugar.
2. The ability to refactor member look up easily.
What it costs:
1. Overloads syntax.
a. obj.field can now be an arbitrary function call.
b. May have arbitrary cost (e.g. T[].length)
2. Complicating the language (proof: this discussion)
3. Another thing to learn.
4. Another thing for tools to process.
I don't think the syntax sugar it provides counts for anything really.
The ability to refactor member look ups is nice, but I find that this
rarely occurs in practice and even when it occurs, it's not hard to
replace obj.field with obj.field() or obj.getField().
The costs far outweigh the benefits IMO.
