On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 23:17:53 UTC, Stewart Gordon
wrote:
On 20/02/2013 20:32, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 20:41:24 Rob T wrote:
The reality is that I often don't know if I'll be using one
syntax over the other until usage experience is gained and the
usag
On 20/02/2013 20:32, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 20:41:24 Rob T wrote:
The reality is that I often don't know if I'll be using one
syntax over the other until usage experience is gained and the
usage context determines the answer. I may even want to use both
forms dep
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 19:41:25 UTC, Rob T wrote:
In an effort to reduce the use of @property, I have to guess if
I'm really going to use a given function with the assignment
syntax or not, but that's something I prefer not to be
constantly thinking about, so the tendency is to de
Here's a C# link providing a definition of property
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x9fsa0sw.aspx
The C# implementation appears to fit closer with the namespace
concept that had been proposed as solution to the property
question, it is clearly not the same thing as the @property
conce
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 20:41:24 Rob T wrote:
> The reality is that I often don't know if I'll be using one
> syntax over the other until usage experience is gained and the
> usage context determines the answer. I may even want to use both
> forms depending on the use context.
I don't unde
Has anyone really tried to use @property assuming the optional
assignment syntax will be depreciated? I have.
The results I'm getting is a ton of @property tags in my structs
and classes, much more than I had expected. In one struct, almost
all the functions are tagged @property. I know I can
