https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #8 from anonymous4 ---
If deprecation goes successfully, it may open possibility for implementation of
strict properties.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #7 from anonymous4 ---
But, yeah, presumably it should deprecate a bunch of stuff first.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #6 from anonymous4 ---
Currently it works according to optional parentheses, which is not ambiguous,
since strict properties obviously aren't implemented. If you want to introduce
strict properties gradually, it's a DIP too, what to
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Panteleev ---
It has been a while, and I think the strict properties DIPs were about entirely
forbidding "someProperty()"; whereas in this case, it may make more sense for
incremental improvement in the form of fixing
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #4 from anonymous4 ---
This is called "strict properties" and requires a DIP, especially since
previous DIPs about this went nowhere and people in general gave up on sorting
this out. But maybe it's a good time for a new DIP. Among other
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #3 from Basile-z ---
Thanks for the explanations, I see the issue now, that is that opCall is not
tried.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Panteleev ---
(In reply to Basile-z from comment #1)
> what is the background idea ?
Making @property do its job
> Is this proposal a way to have opCall called without explicit CallExp ?
No. () is the CallExp. It
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22769
Basile-z changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b2.t...@gmx.com
--- Comment #1 from Basile-z
