Poll: do you use @property semantics? (page 2)

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 22:38:34 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: > I think I heard about supporting the following as well, which is currently missing: > > foo.data++; Yeah, these and @property void delegate() foo() { ... } obj.foo(); // should call the delegate, not be a no-op are the two things I still hold out hope for @property to be useful. But it has been like 11 years and it has never worked. I don't expect it ever will.

September 15, 2022

Re: Poll: do you use @property semantics?

Posted by Ruby The Roobster
in reply to Rikki Cattermole

Permalink

Ruby The Roobster

Posted in reply to Rikki Cattermole

Permalink

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 19:20:04 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:

Recently Walter has been wanting to remove language features that don't need to be kept to simplify the language.

It seems everybody agrees that binary literals are not a worthy candidate for removal, but one thing that I kept thinking about was @property. As far as I know, hardly anyone actually uses its semantic behaviors, and the ones that it does have which are incomplete are special cases that don't benefit us all that much.

I was going to post this yesterday, but it turns out I am not alone in thinking this can be removed safely (can be swapped to a UDA to prevent code breakage without any language additions).

So, who uses @property semantics?

https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#property-functions

I use it (though in my case, the code would still work the same even without @property). Personally, I think it should be kept, because of ref properties, that could possibly be used to restrict the value-range of members.

On 15/09/2022 12:34 PM, Ruby The Roobster wrote: > I use it (though in my case, the code would still work the same even without @property). Okay, so you don't use the semantics provided by @property, a UDA would still allow your code to work (see link for semantics)?

On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 00:38:54 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: > > On 15/09/2022 12:34 PM, Ruby The Roobster wrote: >> I use it (though in my case, the code would still work the same even without @property). > > Okay, so you don't use the semantics provided by @property, a UDA would still allow your code to work (see link for semantics)? I mean that because properties don't take any arguments, such a function could be called using UFCS, and it would act the same as if it were marked @property.

On 15/09/2022 1:31 PM, Ruby The Roobster wrote: > On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 00:38:54 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: >> >> On 15/09/2022 12:34 PM, Ruby The Roobster wrote: >>> I use it (though in my case, the code would still work the same even without @property). >> >> Okay, so you don't use the semantics provided by @property, a UDA would still allow your code to work (see link for semantics)? > > I mean that because properties don't take any arguments, such a function could be called using UFCS, and it would act the same as if it were marked @property. Okay good good, you are only using the syntax that is what we needed to know, thanks!

struct S { void opCall() {} void opAssign(S s) {}; } @property ref S foo(); foo(); // doesn't do what's expected foo = S(); // same @property void delegate() foo(); foo(); // same @property ref int foo(); foo++;

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 19:20:04 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:

Recently Walter has been wanting to remove language features that don't need to be kept to simplify the language.

I was going to post this yesterday, but it turns out I am not alone in thinking this can be removed safely (can be swapped to a UDA to prevent code breakage without any language additions).

So, who uses @property semantics?

https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#property-functions

I use it extensively and have since I can remember for all my projects. Would really hate having to go through all my projects to remove it and fix whatever bugs/errors that will for sure creep up from it.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:20:04PM +0000, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > So, who uses @property semantics? > > https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#property-functions Not me. In the past I only did it to satisfy Phobos range APIs, but today Phobos no longer requires @property on ranges, so it's basically useless as far as I'm concerned. T -- Marketing: the art of convincing people to pay for what they didn't need before which you fail to deliver after.

Forums