Using memberspaces for a property-like syntax and more

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:14:29 TommiT wrote:
> I propose we just forget about the whole concept of a property

I think that this proves that the property discussion has gotten way out of 
hand. The real question is whether we think that we need explicit properties 
or not. If we don't, then presumably, we'll end up with some variant of what 
Walter has suggestiing. If we do, then I see no reason to do anything other 
than just fixing up the implementation of @property. The problems with it are 
almost entirely due to a lack of being properly implemented rather than there 
being a problem with its design. Really, the only major design issue with 
@property that's been being debated is whether it should make it so that 
parens are required on normal function calls, and everything else about 
@property is actually indepedent of that.

I don't think that we should be trying to add major, new concepts right now. I 
think that we should just decide whether or not we need explicit properties. 
And that will decide whether we go with a variant of what Walter is suggesting 
or whether we do something with @property. All these other suggestions are 
just complicating things to no real benefit.

- Jonathan M Davis