|Posted by 12345swordy|
in reply to Max Haughton
Posted in reply to Max Haughton
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:20:53 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
pow can be inlined, there is no optimization problem here.
As for why the rewriting doesn't happen in general I assume it's because there wasn't demand for it.
Why is this a roadblock, can't you just lower to the form similar to the one you suggest?
The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be allowed for functions that are not mark property when it comes to ^^= operator for integers.
You've lost me.
Should g ^^= 2 be allowed for non-@property functions? Where g() is a function call where function definitions void g(int value) and int g() exist.