Possible @property compromise

[Zach the Mystic]

On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 07:33:52 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 03:15:57 UTC, TommiT wrote:
>> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 02:55:44 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
>> wrote:
>>> Well, if you want access to a struct from outside, save 
>>> yourself the time and put it outside to begin with. A nested 
>>> struct of course is directly related to the entity it finds 
>>> itself in. My pet metaphor is struct Dog containing struct 
>>> Tail. It would definitely be illogical to put the Tail 
>>> outside the Dog.
>>
>> If Tail is an autonomous struct/class, then it totally makes 
>> sense to put the definition of Tail outside of dog. This 
>> enables you to perhaps use the same Tail in Wolf's and 
>> Hyeena's definitions. If, on the other hand, Tail is not an 
>> autonomous type, but rather, needs to able to wag the dog, 
>> then Tail is really more like a separate logical section 
>> within Dog's definition, i.e. a namespace within Dog.
>
> A dog's tail is not an autonomous struct/class. If you ever had 
> a dog you would know that. Also, the dog's tail is no namespace 
> because it contains tail-specific data too.

I'm sorry, I'm just getting allergic to the word "namespace", 
since I don't believe any introduction of a special namespace 
feature in the language is required. Structs are namespaces - you 
got me there.