As the property thread is growing big again, arguments get lost, etc I started to document the discussion results in the wiki.

http://wiki.dlang.org/Property_Discussion_Wrap-up

Please add missing information, arguments, issues, etc.

But please keep off-topic stuff, offenses and meta discussion(release
process, ...) in the newsgroup.

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 18:57:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> As the property thread is growing big again, arguments get lost, etc I
> started to document the discussion results in the wiki.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Property_Discussion_Wrap-up
>
> Please add missing information, arguments, issues, etc.
>
> But please keep off-topic stuff, offenses and meta discussion(release
> process, ...) in the newsgroup.

Excellent write up and exactly what we need to make an informed final decision on this prolonged subject.

You may want to add these links for historical review of past DIP's on the subject.

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs

The most recent open DIP is here

http://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs

--rt

Good. That thread has already been huge by morning, it is rather hard to find essential info there now.

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 19:40:43 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> You may want to add these links for historical review of past DIP's on the subject.
>
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs
>
> The most recent open DIP is here
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs
>
> --rt

I added in these links.

--rt

I have added a basis for quite an important thing (in my opinion) - unified test code base that covers as much possible (and impossible) usage, with all weird cases. Any new proposal can then be clearly defined by how it processes this code and what defines legals. And later this will can be trivially converted into unittest.

How about separating actual proposals to own pages? One more and this will become a mess.

I started a discussion for solutions and problems to property ref returns and address taking.

http://wiki.dlang.org/Talk:Property_Discussion_Wrap-up#ref_returns_and_taking_the_address

--rt

I have added few last "tricky" moments discussed in newsgroup to test code sample. Proposal authors - please do take some actions ;) Also all proposal is split to separate page to navigate and edit easier.

On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 18:57:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> But please keep off-topic stuff, offenses and meta discussion(release
> process, ...) in the newsgroup.

Off topic rant.

I suppressed a counterexample in the section Optional parentheses  - Extra note .

The note state that some stuff are valid for *function* and the counter example showed ambiguity using opCall. I don't know who did this and I don't care. I however can't stand intellectual dishonesty.

If your ideas are the best one, such mean move shouldn't be necessary to prove your point.

On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 16:50:47 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Off topic rant.
>
> I suppressed a counterexample in the section Optional parentheses
>  - Extra note .
>
> The note state that some stuff are valid for *function* and the counter example showed ambiguity using opCall. I don't know who did this and I don't care. I however can't stand intellectual dishonesty.

It was me, sorry if I have offended you. I tend to read "function" as "callable" if not mentioned otherwise and thus was wandering how note refers to this case. This left counter-example in hope that someone will comment it.

Now I see that it should be better suited to discussion, but at that time it was just curiosity, not desire to prove anything.