Re: Privatize a few members to allow messing with them #11353
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 20:01:43 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:58:05 UTC, matheus wrote:
+loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
This works because it was declared:
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
Right?
Almost. Given these definitions:
@safe @nogc pure @property
{
const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
}
This:
loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
is rewritten as:
loc.linnum(loc.linnum() + incrementLoc);
Alright and thanks again.
Matheus.
Re: Privatize a few members to allow messing with them #11353
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:58:05 UTC, matheus wrote:
+loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
This works because it was declared:
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
Right?
Almost. Given these definitions:
@safe @nogc pure @property
{
const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
}
This:
loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
is rewritten as:
loc.linnum(loc.linnum() + incrementLoc);
Re: Privatize a few members to allow messing with them #11353
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:55:56 UTC, matheus wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:46:35 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
...
@safe @nogc pure @property
{
const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
const uint charnum() { return _charnum; }
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
void charnum(uint rhs) { _charnum = rhs; }
}
...with which the += won't work (at least this variant, as the
getter isn't returning ref).
Oh I see now and thanks for the information.
By the way:
+loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
This works because it was declared:
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
Right?
Matheus.
Re: Privatize a few members to allow messing with them #11353
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:46:35 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:42:57 UTC, matheus wrote:
in this case this was more a style thing than anything else
right? Or is there something I'm not able to see?
Before the change, linnum and charnum are public variables, one
can do a += on them. After the change, they become properties
accessing, as the PR says, private variables:
@safe @nogc pure @property
{
const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
const uint charnum() { return _charnum; }
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
void charnum(uint rhs) { _charnum = rhs; }
}
...with which the += won't work (at least this variant, as the
getter isn't returning ref).
Oh I see now and thanks for the information.
Matheus.
Re: Privatize a few members to allow messing with them #11353
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:42:57 UTC, matheus wrote:
in this case this was more a style thing than anything else
right? Or is there something I'm not able to see?
Before the change, linnum and charnum are public variables, one
can do a += on them. After the change, they become properties
accessing, as the PR says, private variables:
@safe @nogc pure @property
{
const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
const uint charnum() { return _charnum; }
void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
void charnum(uint rhs) { _charnum = rhs; }
}
...with which the += won't work (at least this variant, as the
getter isn't returning ref).
Privatize a few members to allow messing with them #11353
Hi, I was looking the PR in DMD and I found this one: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/11353/ One of the changes was: -loc.linnum += incrementLoc; +loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc; I usually do the former and I particularly hate the later, so my question is, in this case this was more a style thing than anything else right? Or is there something I'm not able to see? Thanks, Matheus.
