• Lionello Lunesu (16/16) Nov 24 2006 When converting a (public) variable into a property (get/set) I suddenly...
• Stewart Gordon (23/35) Nov 24 2006 No. AIUI property getting is what your code is supposed to do.
• Lionello Lunesu (4/19) Nov 24 2006 Yes, that's what I meant :S
• Dave (6/39) Nov 24 2006 I think you're right - this is a bug. Besides which, it's inconsistent s...

Lionello Lunesu <lio lunesu.remove.com> writes:

When converting a (public) variable into a property (get/set) I suddenly 
got the compiler error mentioned in the subject.

The following code is a minimal test case:

#int prop() { return 0; }
#void main() {



A workaround is to drop the "auto" and use the actual type: int x = prop;
or to to add an extra pair of (): auto x = prop();

I understand that "prop" is a function and therefor "auto" defers it as 
such and then fails to declare a variable of that type (which is why I'm 
posting it here, instead of in BugZilla.)

Would it break anything to treat this case such that a property behaves 
more like a variable, meaning that the type deferred would be the return 
type of the getter?

L.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 When converting a (public) variable into a property (get/set) I suddenly 
 got the compiler error mentioned in the subject.
 
 The following code is a minimal test case:
 
 #int prop() { return 0; }
 #void main() {



<snip>
 Would it break anything to treat this case such that a property behaves 
 more like a variable, meaning that the type deferred would be the return 
 type of the getter?

No.  AIUI property getting is what your code is supposed to do.

A function name by itself has no meaning without context.  There are 
four ways in which it can gain meaning from context:

(a) calling the function explicitly, using ()
(b) taking the function's address, using &
(c) setting the property, by putting it on the left-hand side of an =
(d) getting the property, by using it in an expression anywhere where a 
value is required.

The problem appears to be that, in this context, the compiler fails to 
detect the context before trying to process the declaration.  Really, 
using it as an initializer, whether in an auto declaration or one of 
specified type, should be an instance of (d).

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

"Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ek7j2c$1rk9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 When converting a (public) variable into a property (get/set) I suddenly 
 got the compiler error mentioned in the subject.

 The following code is a minimal test case:

 #int prop() { return 0; }
 #void main() {



 <snip>
 Would it break anything to treat this case such that a property behaves 
 more like a variable, meaning that the type deferred would be the return 
 type of the getter?

 No.  AIUI property getting is what your code is supposed to do.

Yes, that's what I meant :S

L. 

Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Lionello Lunesu wrote:
 When converting a (public) variable into a property (get/set) I 
 suddenly got the compiler error mentioned in the subject.

 The following code is a minimal test case:

 #int prop() { return 0; }
 #void main() {



 <snip>
 Would it break anything to treat this case such that a property 
 behaves more like a variable, meaning that the type deferred would be 
 the return type of the getter?

 
 No.  AIUI property getting is what your code is supposed to do.
 
 A function name by itself has no meaning without context.  There are 
 four ways in which it can gain meaning from context:
 
 (a) calling the function explicitly, using ()
 (b) taking the function's address, using &
 (c) setting the property, by putting it on the left-hand side of an =
 (d) getting the property, by using it in an expression anywhere where a 
 value is required.
 
 The problem appears to be that, in this context, the compiler fails to 
 detect the context before trying to process the declaration.  Really, 
 using it as an initializer, whether in an auto declaration or one of 
 specified type, should be an instance of (d).
 

I think you're right - this is a bug. Besides which, it's inconsistent since
the requirement to use 
() to call any [non function literal] function with an empty parameter list was
dropped months ago.

Has this been added to bugzilla?

Thanks,

- Dave

 Stewart.