On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:27:57 -0000, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:36:43 -0000, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
On 2011-12-13 23:08:43 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
We could have inferred property intention from the code pattern,
without requiring any keyword. That solution (which was discussed and
rejected in this newsgroup) was miles ahead from the drivel of
@property we have now.
By "code patterns", you mean something like this?
struct Foo
{
int getBar();
void setBar(int);
}
void main()
{
Foo foo;
int a = foo.bar; // calls getBar()
foo.bar = a; // calls setBar(a)
}
Why not something similar to C# syntax...
struct Foo
{
int bar // <- does DMD do lookahead? detect { instead of ; here and
trigger "property" parsing
{
get
{
return this; // <- 'this' meaning the 'bar' member
}
set
{
this = value; // <- 'this' meaning the 'bar' member, 'value'
meaning the RHS of the "£instance.bar = <value>" statement
}
}
}
Regan
Apologies, there was a typo/mistake in the 'get' above. :)
Regan
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
