Properties

[Yigal Chripun]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "bearophile"<bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>  wrote in message
> news:gk5grh$2o8i$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Chad J:
>>> public property int var
>>> {
>>>      get { return var; }
>>>      set { var = $; }
>>> }
>>>
>>> public property int foo
>>> {
>>>      get { return foo; }
>>>      set { foo = $; }
>>> }
>> I think I have suggested something similar, time ago.
>>
>> The default situations you have shown may enjoy an even shorter syntax,
>> for example:
>> public property int var { get set }
>>
>> That can also become the following when you want only a getter or setter:
>> public property int var { get }
>> Or:
>> public property int var { set }
>>
>>
>> (I don't like all those repeated "foo"/"var", it's not much DRY. But at
>> the moment I see no better solution, that works well for nested
>> classes/structs too).
>>
>
> Something like this:
>
> public property int var
> {
>      get { return property; }
>      set { property = $; }
> }
>
> Or something like this:
>
> public property int foo
> {
>      get { return $; }
>      set { $ = $new; }
> }
>
>> Let's see if Walter likes all this.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
>

I like the general idea, but why invent new words?
how about this:

public property int var {
   get { return this; }
   set { this = new; }
}

there's one issue with the above - what about the "this" of the 
container class/struct, but that's solved easily with "outer" just like 
in nested classes.

it makes sense to me since the feature seems to be mainly syntax sugar 
for something like the following:

class A {
	struct Prop {
		int internal;
		int opCall() { return internal; }
		void opAssign(int value) { internal = value; }
	}
	public Prop prop;
	...
}

void main() {
	auto a = new A;
	int num = a.prop;
	a.prop = 9;
	...
}