Fixing const arrays

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:25:12 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 14:02:51 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 12/13/11 10:32 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 12, 2011 18:00:35 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > >> On 12/12/11 1:12 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, December 12, 2011 08:46:18 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > >>>> Insisting on the current property semantics was a sizeable
> > >>>> mistake
> > >>>> of
> > >>>> this community, and I am sorry we gave into it.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Aside from the fact that the behavior of -property isn't the
> > >>> default,
> > >>> what's the problem with @property?
> > >> 
> > >> Other than it being completely useless, requiring more rote
> > >> memorization, and fomenting time-wasting discussion? None.
> > > 
> > > So, you prefer the situation where any function with no arguments
> > > can be used as a getter and any function with a single argument can
> > > be used as a setter?
> > 
> > No. That would be a false choice.
> 
> I'm not saying that those are the only choices, but you seem to think that
> the current situation is worse than what we had before, which I don't
> understand. The current situation looks all around better to me.

In fact, what _would_ you prefer to @property if it's not what we had before?

- Jonathan M Davis