Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:22:12 UTC, thebluepandabear 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:19:53 UTC, []() {}() wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Did you read the link provided? There's examples there...

it's say for member functions, not member variables.

I read it, but I dont get the point was being made about how use 
ufcs to convert a public member variable of a class type into a 
getter and setter. Was there an example in the link that I missed?