property / getProperty() / setProperty()

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Andrei
> Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I don't know if you're just being passive-aggressive here or what.  Is
> this a response to my post?
> 
> I'll ask again: do you have any *technical* issues with the 'property'
> attribute suggestion?

My main technical issue is throwing a keyword at a very minor issue. 
Once the keyword is in the mix, we need to define how it interacts with 
everything else (e.g., are properties overridable?) A solution based on 
rewrites is considerably simpler and more in according with the size of 
the problem.

Andrei