property syntax strawman

[Benji Smith]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> I think it's funny that for a week, Andrei has been arguing against
>> throwing around new syntax to solve this problem, and that's exactly
>> what you guys have come up with.  Really, how much more complicated
>> would this make the parser, compared to adding a new attribute?
> 
> We couldn't find a good solution without adding new syntax, so this is 
> now on the table. Adding syntax or keywords is the next thing to look 
> at. I'd still be unsatisfied if:
> 
> (a) there would be significant syntactic noise to defining a read-only 
> property
> 
> (b) we had to add a keyword
> 
> 
> Andrei

The nice thing about a keyword (or an @attribute) is that it's 
greppable. Syntax, not so much.

--b