• Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> Jan 24 2012
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Jan 24 2012

Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:

 byKey is what, an adverb phrase, an adjective




 range which is a thing.


 It has the implied verb "enumerate", "span". "Span


 
 Actually, it's for each (x) in (y) by key:
 
 foreach(i; aa.byKey);
 
 The verb is not implied, nor should it be:


 Perhaps I'm out of line, and I haven't looked much at the class/struct
specifically in question (Actually I have no clue which one your talking
about), but I would wonder one thing. Would it be read/write or just read-only?
If it's read-only, I would think there would be no harm in having it as a
property.

 A second thought, is would there be any benefit having it as a method,
specifically passing the address as a function rather than just getting the
return value (From what I can tell that's unlikely).

 I'll vote property.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:43:33 -0500, Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com>  
wrote:

 byKey is what, an adverb phrase, an adjective




 range which is a thing.


 It has the implied verb "enumerate", "span". "Span



 Actually, it's for each (x) in (y) by key:

 foreach(i; aa.byKey);

 The verb is not implied, nor should it be:


  Perhaps I'm out of line, and I haven't looked much at the class/struct  
 specifically in question (Actually I have no clue which one your talking  
 about),


The builtin associative arrays of D.  i.e.:

int[string] aa;

 but I would wonder one thing. Would it be read/write or just read-only?  
 If it's read-only, I would think there would be no harm in having it as  
 a property.


If key, it must be read only, since keys must be immutable.

If value, it could potentially be read/write.

  A second thought, is would there be any benefit having it as a method,  
 specifically passing the address as a function rather than just getting  
 the return value (From what I can tell that's unlikely).


properties are methods.  There should be a way to pass a delegate to a  
property function, not allowing this would be unnecessarily limiting.   
Some sort of __traits directive comes to mind...

-Steve