| Thread overview | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 19, 2014 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |pull URL| |https://github.com/D-Progra | |mming-Language/druntime/pul | |l/768 CC| |andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@puremagic.com |andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com -- | |||
Permalink
ReplyApril 20, 2014 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx -- | |||
April 24, 2014 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jmdavisProg@gmx.com --- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> --- Agreed. Properties are supposed to emulate variables. That's the whole idea behind them. dup and idup don't fit that bill at all. They're clearly functions, and if you want to still call them without parens, well empty parens are optional, so you can. -- | |||
April 26, 2014 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 JR <zorael@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zorael@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from JR <zorael@gmail.com> --- It's semantically ambiguous as duplicate can be both a noun and a verb. I tend to think of .{i,}dup the noun way; something.duplicateOf; where whether the .duplicateOf property "does" something or not remains up to implementation. In abstract: the clerk has a stack of foos and you're asking for a .dup copy, so he fetches one from the pile and hands it to you. The opposite is naturally .duplicateThisForMe, from which perspective they shouldn't be property functions, no. -- | |||
August 07, 2019 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com |nobody@puremagic.com -- | |||
January 25, 2022 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 Dennis <dkorpel@live.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dkorpel@live.nl --- Comment #3 from Dennis <dkorpel@live.nl> --- dup is now an implicitly imported function in druntime, does that fix this issue? Or do you want the specification to call them something different? In that case, the same should be done for associative array properties like .byKey and .rehash. -- | |||
December 17, 2022 [Issue 12595] dup/idup shouldn't be property functions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12595 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P1 |P3 -- | |||
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation