Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

[Gavin Ray]

On Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 09:52:11 UTC, Dukc wrote:

> D has far less need for getters/setters than Java or C++. The 
> reason is [Uniform Function Call 
> Syntax](https://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ufcs.html). This means that 
> a member of a `struct` or `class` can start out as a normal 
> field and be later converted to getter/setter if needed, 
> without breaking calling code.

This is a great point that I actually had never considered. If 
you need to swap out the implementation details later, you 
haven't actually locked yourself in to exposing the raw member 
because you swap it with a getter function/property of the same 
name. Huh. I love D.