On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 08:02:18PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: [...]
> Btw, why exactly is the following allowed to compile?:
> 
> -----
> import std.conv;
> import std.stdio;
> 
> struct S { }
> 
> void main()
> {
>     S s;
>     writeln(s.text = "foo");
> }
> -----
> 
> This translates into std.conv.text(s, "foo"). I'm not a fan, especially since 'text' is not a @property. But we've already reached the consensus that all functions can be called like properties (for some reason..), so I guess it's too late to change this.

We have? Really?  I haven't been keeping track of all the details, but my last impression was that we agreed that calling non-@property functions with a=b syntax should be illegal.


T

-- 
LINUX = Lousy Interface for Nefarious Unix Xenophobes.

On 8/27/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> We have? Really?  I haven't been keeping track of all the details, but my last impression was that we agreed that calling non-@property functions with a=b syntax should be illegal.

Oh, maybe you're right! I think I was confusing it with *parentheses*, where a function can be called without parens if it has no arguments.

The 'a = b' syntax, I think that you're right, it won't be accepted for regular functions. (Can Kenji or someone confirm?).

That could definitely make things safer.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 08:40:16PM +0200, Maxim Fomin wrote: [...]
> Let's start from basics:
> 
> writeln = 42;
> 
> and this is also by design.

If that can be called a design at all, it's a horrible design. It should be illegal, if it isn't already. It makes assignment syntax meaningless, and is useful only for obfuscated code contests.


T

-- 
Why have vacation when you can work?? -- EC

On 8/27/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>> and this is also by design.
>
> If that can be called a design at all, it's a horrible design.

I would call it an accidental implementation detail at best! :)

On Tuesday, 27 August 2013 at 19:00:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 08:40:16PM +0200, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> [...]
>> Let's start from basics:
>> 
>> writeln = 42;
>> 
>> and this is also by design.
>
> If that can be called a design at all, it's a horrible design. It should
> be illegal, if it isn't already. It makes assignment syntax meaningless,
> and is useful only for obfuscated code contests.
>
>
> T

It wasn't me who invented this :)

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 09:40:54PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 8/27/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> >> and this is also by design.
> >
> > If that can be called a design at all, it's a horrible design.
> 
> I would call it an accidental implementation detail at best! :)

	Let's call it an accidental feature. -- Larry Wall

:)

That doesn't make it any less ugly, though. I still say we should make func=y syntax illegal for non-@property functions.


T

-- 
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the world. -- Carl B. Constantine

On Tuesday, 27 August 2013 at 19:41:08 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 8/27/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> and this is also by design.
>>
>> If that can be called a design at all, it's a horrible design.
>
> I would call it an accidental implementation detail at best! :)

It was by design, then @property was added and now everyone is confused why it exists. Pretty sure the consensus was to require @property for assignment, but parens were to be optional. At least it seemed to have the least disagreement.