property / getProperty() / setProperty()

[Ary Borenszweig]

Andrei Alexandrescu escribió:
> bearophile wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>> Thanks. So it looks like get_property() and set_property() could fly. 
>>> How does that sound?
>>
>> Not too much good. Among the simpler solutions there's the 'property' 
>> attribute, that while not helping in reducing code (it makes code 
>> longer!) solves most problems, while being simple. It's the minimal 
>> solution that I think will work/fly.
> 
> We can't throw keywords at problems like they're getting out of style. 
> I've noticed that here every little problem gets solved by a little 
> keyword. If not, some arcane new syntax. Nobody seems to care about 
> rewriting, which I think is best.

So what do you think about introducing attributes? Not only it will help 
not introducing new keyword, but it'll also *reduce* the amount of 
keywords that exist right now.