Hi, I'm very upset with the D language, but the current compiler still
misses a few important things (listed on the website, like property
gettor/settor, packages, templates,...).
Do you have an idea when a more complete version will be available?
This would make it much more valuable.

"Jonas" <jonas.vermeulen@student.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message news:ada4qv$3029$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hi, I'm very upset with the D language, but the current compiler still
> misses a few important things (listed on the website, like property
> gettor/settor, packages, templates,...).
> Do you have an idea when a more complete version will be available?
> This would make it much more valuable.
>
>
Of course I mean I'm really enthousiastic about the language. I'm sorry for the wrong word choice, strange thought.

"Jonas" <jonas.vermeulen@student.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message news:adaj51$i99$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Jonas" <jonas.vermeulen@student.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message news:ada4qv$3029$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Hi, I'm very upset with the D language, but the current compiler still
> > misses a few important things (listed on the website, like property
> > gettor/settor, packages, templates,...).
> > Do you have an idea when a more complete version will be available?
> > This would make it much more valuable.
> >
> >
> Of course I mean I'm really enthousiastic about the language. I'm sorry
for
> the wrong word choice, strange thought.

The packages are implemented. The templates are not defined and are for version 2 of the language. The property gettors/settors are turning out to be a problem, they may just get dumped.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adb2h9$11qt$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> version 2 of the language. The property gettors/settors are turning out to be a problem, they may just get dumped.

Please, no!

If it seems hard to implement them in the way documented in the reference,
then
maybe try the C# approach?

    class Button
    {
        private int m_width;
        public int width
        {
            get
            {
                return m_width;
            }
            set
            {
                m_width = value;
                repaint();
            }
        }
    }

> The packages are implemented. The templates are not defined and are for version 2 of the language. The property gettors/settors are turning out to be a problem, they may just get dumped.
>
>

Though they  are not necessary, I would find it a big loss for D it won't be implemented. See the messages about "Any modern language should include properties" and others about them. They are a real pro for D!!

BTW: I agree with some that Delphi is clearer in its syntax.

Ok, ok, I'm just going to have to work harder at this <g>.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:adcg51$2imn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adb2h9$11qt$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > version 2 of the language. The property gettors/settors are turning out
to
> > be a problem, they may just get dumped.
>
> Please, no!
>
> If it seems hard to implement them in the way documented in the reference,
> then
> maybe try the C# approach?
>
>     class Button
>     {
>         private int m_width;
>         public int width
>         {
>             get
>             {
>                 return m_width;
>             }
>             set
>             {
>                 m_width = value;
>                 repaint();
>             }
>         }
>     }
>
>

On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 11:11:59 +0400, "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote:
> 
> Please, no!
> 
> If it seems hard to implement them in the way documented in the reference,
> then
> maybe try the C# approach?
> 
>     class Button
>     {
>         private int m_width;
>         public int width
>         {
>             get
>             {
>                 return m_width;
>             }
>             set
>             {
>                 m_width = value;
>                 repaint();
>             }
>         }
>     }
> 
I hadn't seen that syntax before -- much better!
Even better would be to further blur the distinction between data
and functions by not requiring the dummy m_width:

    public int width  {
        // ok to omit get ??
        set  {
            self = value;     // two keywords !
            repaint ();
            }
        }
        ...

Karl Bochert <kbochert@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:1103_1023031499@bose:

> Even better would be to further blur the distinction between data and functions by not requiring the dummy m_width:
> 
>     public int width  {
>         // ok to omit get ??
>         set  {
>             self = value;     // two keywords !
>             repaint ();
>             }
>         }
>         ...

How would you access width inside the class wihout calling the function?

On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 16:32:52 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Down <pat@codemoon.com> wrote:
> Karl Bochert <kbochert@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:1103_1023031499@bose:
> 
> > Even better would be to further blur the distinction between data and functions by not requiring the dummy m_width:
> > 
> >     public int width  {
> >         // ok to omit get ??
> >         set  {
> >             self = value;     // two keywords !
> >             repaint ();
> >             }
> >         }
> >         ...
> 
> How would you access width inside the class wihout calling the function?
> 
1) the absence of a get clause causes the compiler to treat
    accesses to width just like any other variable, whether inside
    the  class or not.  Likewise for set of course.

2) In a more general sense, the compiler may in-line both the
    get and set functions if they were sufficiently short.
    The D documentation says "The compiler makes the decision whether to
     inline a function or not...".

"Karl Bochert" <kbochert@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1103_1023039833@bose...

> 1) the absence of a get clause causes the compiler to treat
>     accesses to width just like any other variable, whether inside
>     the  class or not.  Likewise for set of course.

What about read-only (and write-only) properties then???

Besides, sometimes you just don't need a temporary. For example, the Width property of Button will most likely call MoveWindow to set, and GetWindowRect to get the actual position. Additional variable would be just a waste of space...