On 30-04-2012 04:37, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:42:23PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 4/29/12, Jacob Carlborg<d...@me.com> wrote:
In principle I agree with you. But in practice this doesn't always
work. Take this for example: Prints "0" and "1" as expected. If we
now change "point" to a property like this: It will now print "0"
and "0". This is a silently breaking change. Sure you can change
"point" to return by reference..
This is a great point and an issue I've ran into and talked about
before. The compiler really ought to try and convert a call like this:
foo.property++;
foo.property+=10;
into e.g.:
foo.property = foo.property.opAdd(1);
foo.property = foo.property.opAdd(10);
It would make for some really nice APIs if this feature was available.
[...]
To me, the compiler needs to be fixed so that anytime the return value
of a @property is used as an lvalue, it should always try to call the
setter function, or some kind of setter function, instead of the getter
(unless there's no setter, in which case it's OK to call the getter).
I chalk this up to a compiler issue, not a language issue.
T
What you just talked about = semantics. So, it is a language issue.
--
- Alex
