Possible @property compromise

[Rob T]

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 22:46:36 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 19:59:12 UTC, Steven 
> Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Well, we can disagree, but you still haven't explained why 
>> it's fundamental.  Other languages have implemented properties 
>> just fine without having to specify that they are structs or 
>> aggregate types.  Until you come up with a compelling reason 
>> for structs, I'll stand by my position.
>
> Do you mind if I put my arguments in a new thread?

FYI, I got some feedback from Andrei today in the DIP23 thread ...

--------------------
On 2/4/13 1:15 PM, Rob T wrote:
> BTW, I am wondering if the idea of "memberspaces" was 
> considered, and if
> it was considered, then why was it dropped?

An idea that departs considerably from the current status in D 
has a
disadvantage compared to an idea that makes things work within the
@property framework.

Andrei
--------------------

See

http://forum.dlang.org/post/kepcjq$5fa$1@digitalmars.com

--rt