DIP26 updated

[Robert]

> I can unequivocally say that I think that this DIP is a horrible idea. While 
> it may need some work, DIP 23 is worlds better. I definitely think that 
> @property should be implemented as originally intended save for the 
> unfortunate fact that we have to keep parenless function calls around. And 
> this DIP definitely isn't going in that direction at all. I'm completely 
> against anything which would involve not having @property on front, and I 
> think that it's a complete disaster to try and disallow UFCS properties.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

If you really think this way, then I really don't understand why you
embraced my idea of:

@property int a;

so much. It does not make any sense at all, if property has not the
meaning you seem to think it should have, when embracing this idea.

If you allow @property qualified functions returning ref, then you
basically consider

public int a;

a valid property and what should this 

@property int a;

be good for? In fact, for the people who don't consider properties a
means of encapsulation, but just about convenience syntax and forbidden
parentheses, I completely understand why they think that

@property int a;

would be bullshit. If property does not mean encapsulation, then why
should an @property qualified field mean encapsulation?!