On 2012-01-18 09:30, sclytrack wrote:
Is it practical or realistic to throw it out at this stage? I don't
know. But there are reasons to.
I hope we are not dropping properties
regardless of the syntax of how to call them.
Keep @property
Keep methods-as-properties
---------------------------------
(a) No ()
obj.property = "test";
string str = obj.property;
obj.method = "string";
obj.method("first");
string str = obj.method;
obj.method("first", "second");
---------------------------------
(b) Optional () for methods
obj.property = "test";
string str = obj.property;
obj.method = "string";
obj.method("first");
string str = obj.method;
string str = obj.method();
obj.method("first", "second");
---------------------------------
(c) Mandatory () for methods
obj.property = "test";
string str = obj.property;
obj.method = "string";
obj.method("first");
string str = obj.method();
obj.method("first", "second");
---------------------------------
(d) Property and Method separated. (Is this the goal for -property?)
obj.property = "test";
string str = obj.property;
string str = obj.method();
obj.method("first");
obj.method("first", "second");
---------------------------------
Who likes (a) ?
Also I think that the @property opDispatch() looks weird.
I would like this:
property:
getter - parentheses are not allowed
setter:
* equal sign is required
* parentheses are not allowed
method:
no parameters - parentheses are optional
parameters:
* parentheses are required
* equal sign is not allowed
Examples:
obj.property; // legal
obj.property = 1; // legal
obj.property(); // error
obj.property(1); // error
obj.method; // legal
obj.method(); // legal
obj.method(1); // legal
obj.method = 1; // error
--
/Jacob Carlborg
