2013/2/4 Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com>

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:00:32 -0500, kenji hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> wrote:

On the contrary with you, I was read that we no longer get an address of
ref returned value by address-op.

@property ref int foo();
static assert(is(typeof(&foo) == ref int function())); // typeof does not
return int*

If I am correct, there is no need for special enhancement like __traits.

You are right, it does not specify this, I was somewhat mistaken.

But the spirit of the proposal seems to suggest that for all intents and purposes, a property's type is the type of it's return value.

[snip]

It is already satisfied. Inside typeof, all use of property makes its return type.

I think the case of getting address of ref value returned from a property is much rare.

If you really want to do it, we can write short workaround.

A potential workaround could be a la Timon's suggestion:

ref int foowrap() { return foo;}
int *x = &foowrap();

One liner version:

int* x = ((ref x) => &x)(foo);

Let's go with the current proposal, and I will address the __traits mechanism separately.

It seems to me that is an overkill.

Kenji Hara