property syntax strawman

[OF]

Michiel Helvensteijn Wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> >    bool empty { ... }
> >    void empty=(bool b) { ... }
> > 
> > The only problem is when a declaration but not definition is desired:
> > 
> >    bool empty;
> > 
> > but oops! That defines a field. So we came up with essentially a hack:
> > 
> >    bool empty{}
> > 
> > i.e. the {} means the getter is declared, but defined elsewhere.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> It is quite hack-ish. There are ways to have your cake and eat it too. I
> wouldn't settle for 'bool empty{}'.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> bool empty {
>     void set(auto value) { ... }
>     auto get() { ... }
> }
> 
> empty = false; // empty.set(false)
> auto b = empty; // auto b = empty.get()
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> for example, requires no hacks and no keywords. And has the added advantage
> that you can still use the getter and setter methods directly. To call them
> or get delegates from them.
> 
> -- 
> Michiel Helvensteijn
> 

I think I like this version better than using 'bool var{}' (the var= looks ok IMO, though).

Apparently very similar to the C# approach too (which is shorter, but uses an implicit variable):

     public int humanAge
     {
          get
          {
               return age;
          }
          set
          {
               age = value;
          }
     }