property syntax strawman

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:24:54 -0400, Daniel Keep  
<daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> The only issue with this is if the type returned from the getter
>> actually defines a get field or method.  While having a method called
>> get might be a likely possibility, having that on a type that is likely
>> to be returned as a property is probably unlikely. There is of course a
>> workaround:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Or you could just use __traits and avoid having to invent increasingly
> obtuse layers of syntax.

Yes.  As I said elsewhere, this has my vote.

-Steve