Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

[Dukc]

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 03:52:41 UTC, thebluepandabear 
wrote:
> Say you want to write 'SET' now whenever someone sets a 
> width/height value for the rect (as an example), and 'GET' when 
> someone gets the width/height value for the rect, what you 
> could do is do this:
>
> ```
> class Rect2D {
>     int rectWidth;
>     int rectHeight;
>
>     int width() {
>         writeln("GET");
>         return rectWidth;
>     }
>
>     void width(int rectWidth) {
>         writeln("SET");
>         this.rectWidth = rectWidth;
>     }
>
>     int height() {
>         writeln("GET");
>         return rectHeight;
>     }
>
>     void height(int rectHeight) {
>         writeln("SET");
>         this.rectHeight = rectHeight;
>     }
> }
> ```
>
> Honestly, it may not be a magic bullet, but still useful.

Yes, this is what I meant. I did use the UFCS name inaccurately: 
I believe UFCS means the ability to write `y.x(z)` in place of 
`x(y, z)`, and maybe the ability to write `y.x = z` in place of 
`y.x(z)`, but it does not mean the ability to omit empty 
parenthesis in a function call. The latter is what enables 
getters that don't break the API.