Hi, I was looking the PR in DMD and I found this one: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/11353/

One of the changes was:

-            loc.linnum += incrementLoc;
+            loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;

I usually do the former and I particularly hate the later, so my question is, in this case this was more a style thing than anything else right? Or is there something I'm not able to see?

Thanks,

Matheus.

On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:42:57 UTC, matheus wrote:

> in this case this was more a style thing than anything else right? Or is there something I'm not able to see?

Before the change, linnum and charnum are public variables, one can do a += on them. After the change, they become properties accessing, as the PR says, private variables:

    @safe @nogc pure @property
    {
        const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
        const uint charnum() { return _charnum; }
        void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
        void charnum(uint rhs) { _charnum = rhs; }
    }

...with which the += won't work (at least this variant, as the getter isn't returning ref).

On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:46:35 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:42:57 UTC, matheus wrote:
>
>> in this case this was more a style thing than anything else right? Or is there something I'm not able to see?
>
> Before the change, linnum and charnum are public variables, one can do a += on them. After the change, they become properties accessing, as the PR says, private variables:
>
>     @safe @nogc pure @property
>     {
>         const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
>         const uint charnum() { return _charnum; }
>         void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
>         void charnum(uint rhs) { _charnum = rhs; }
>     }
>
> ...with which the += won't work (at least this variant, as the getter isn't returning ref).

Oh I see now and thanks for the information.

Matheus.

On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:55:56 UTC, matheus wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:46:35 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
>> ...
>>     @safe @nogc pure @property
>>     {
>>         const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
>>         const uint charnum() { return _charnum; }
>>         void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
>>         void charnum(uint rhs) { _charnum = rhs; }
>>     }
>>
>> ...with which the += won't work (at least this variant, as the getter isn't returning ref).
>
> Oh I see now and thanks for the information.

By the way:

+            loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;

This works because it was declared:

void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }

Right?

Matheus.

On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:58:05 UTC, matheus wrote:

> +            loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
>
> This works because it was declared:
>
> void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
>
> Right?

Almost. Given these definitions:

@safe @nogc pure @property
{
    const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
    void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
}

This:

loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;

is rewritten as:

loc.linnum(loc.linnum() + incrementLoc);

On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 20:01:43 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:58:05 UTC, matheus wrote:
>
>> +            loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
>>
>> This works because it was declared:
>>
>> void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
>>
>> Right?
>
> Almost. Given these definitions:
>
> @safe @nogc pure @property
> {
>     const uint linnum() { return _linnum; }
>     void linnum(uint rhs) { _linnum = rhs; }
> }
>
> This:
>
> loc.linnum = loc.linnum + incrementLoc;
>
> is rewritten as:
>
> loc.linnum(loc.linnum() + incrementLoc);

Alright and thanks again.

Matheus.