property syntax strawman

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:18:26 -0400, Daniel Keep  
<daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> So your answer is, there is no ambiguity because it's not possible to
>> access the getter/setter directly?  That poses a problem for existing
>> code which uses delegates to such functions.  I'm not sure we want to
>> lose that ability.
>
> You can't trivially disambiguate between the getter and the setter with
> the current system, either.  How is this a new issue?

You can't *trivially* but you can do it (that's another issue that  
probably should be addressed in general for overloaded functions).  Aside  
 from Andrei's wrapper trick, you *can't* do it with the proposed property  
syntax.

> Besides which, why can't you just add this:
>
>   __traits(getter, aggregate.property)
>
> Problem solved.

That works too.  That's probably the most sensable solution I've seen.   
Has my vote.

-Steve