"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote:

[...]
> But why would a top-level function (or a nested function in a top-level function) be considered a property? I'm tempted to say the current behavior is a bug.
[...]

Hmm, lets drive that to the limits:

<code>
  f= g;
</code>

What is the effect of this assignment, if f and g are both function variables of the same type and in addition f and g have this type as a parameter and as a return value?

I know that there are currently restrictions on this example. But are this restrictions somehow natural --- or do they hinder general solutions, i.e. cripple D in an unnecessary way.

-manfred

Manfred Nowak wrote:

> "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> But why would a top-level function (or a nested function in a top-level function) be considered a property? I'm tempted to say the current behavior is a bug.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Hmm, lets drive that to the limits:
> 
> <code>
>   f= g;
> </code>
> 
> What is the effect of this assignment, if f and g are both function variables of the same type

If they are function _variables_, then f will be made a reference to the same function as g is.

If f and g are the actual names of functions, OTOH, then the code is
equivalent to

    f(g());

> and in addition f and g have this type as a parameter and as a return
> value?
<snip>

Hmm ... do recursive types work in D?  I'll have to check....

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.