property / getProperty() / setProperty()

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> 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.

Attributes would be great, but you guys should stop asking me what I 
think and ask Walter. I seem to vaguely recall Walter isn't very excited 
about attributes.

Andrei