Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

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.
> ..

can you give an example please.

i.e. before (class with public member) and after ( i.e. that 
public member converted to getter/setter).