[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P4 --

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan M Davis --- (In reply to Nick Treleaven from comment #14) > This alone makes it an important feature. Actually, I think that it's caused more bugs than anything - especially when much is done with type introspection.

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 Nick Treleaven changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment #14 from Nick

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #13 from anonymous4 --- (In reply to bitwise from comment #11) > enum Accessibility { Read, Write, ReadWrite } > > template isUseableAsFieldOf(T, F, Accessibility access = > Accessibility.Both)(F fun) {...} std.traits should provide

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan M Davis --- I'd advise against relying on @property for any kind of metaprogramming at this point given that it doesn't actually have anything to do with whether the function can be or is used as a property and that its

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #11 from bitwise --- I think @property could be useful in metaprogramming as a means of saying "This function acts like a field". Rather than going through all kinds of checks to see if the symbol was useable as such, it would suffice to

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan M Davis --- -property was dropped precisely because it was decided to not enforce @property, and the future of @property is very uncertain. The odds are very high that when Walter and Andrei finally get around to

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #9 from Nick Treleaven --- 1. The text of this issue mentions -property, but I don't see why we shouldn't reject the cases it describes *regardless* of the -property switch. (This is why I removed the switch from the issue title). 2. This

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan M Davis --- (In reply to Nick Treleaven from comment #7) > Updated the title. Please give a reason why dmd shouldn't reject invalid > @property functions. The rules for using functions as properties currently have

[Issue 8161] give an error for invalid property functions

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8161 Nick Treleaven changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX