@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[BLM768]

On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 17:48:34 UTC, BLM768 wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 10:29:51 UTC, Stian Pedersen 
> wrote:
>> To add to the mess - or maybe suggest a new approach, what 
>> about:
>>
>> class A
>> {
>>    int foo();
>>    void foo=(int a);
>>    private foo_;
>> }
>>
>> Then a.foo = 42; calls the foo= method. No other conversions 
>> from a=b to a method invocation.
>>
>> It may be suggested in one of these 46 pages which I haven't 
>> read. And it'll probably break a lot of stuff.
>
> The problem with this approach is that the getter is still 
> operating under the semantics of a method, but, as a property, 
> it should be acting like a field. An approach like this would 
> work:
>
> class A {
Sorry; message got cut off when I tried to insert a tab and then 
pressed space with the "Send" button focused.

Continuing...

class A {
     @property int foo();
     @property void foo=(int a);
     //etc.
}

However, it doesn't offer any significant advantage over the 
current property syntax other than providing a clearer 
distinction between getters and setters, which is only important 
when dealing with UFCS, as pointed out in an earlier post.