Restrict Class Properties?

[Kevin Bealer]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Michiel" <nomail at please.com> wrote in message 
> news:erfvel$1ivj$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Could someone please define 'properties'?
>>
>> Is it just the syntax? In that case you can make variables public or use
>> structs.
>>
>> Is it the syntax + the encapsulation? That's what D does now. How would
>> you change it, exactly? Are there more problems than just the 'out'?
>>
>> What are 'real properties'?
> 
> True properties would be understood by the compiler as a distinct construct, 
> rather than a hackish rewrite of assignment into a call.  This would allow, 
> among other things, for templated properties; properties as the destination 
> of op=, ++, and --; and the abolishment of the '&' when getting the address 
> of a function or delegate.  As well as preventing such foolishness as 
> "writefln = 6;". 

Preventing writefln = 6 seems like a small thing (i.e. the chances of 
doing this accidentally are low), but I do like the idea of being able 
to do ++ or similar.  The ".length ++" would be a nice syntactic ability 
  for arrays and array-like data structures.

Kevin