Taking address of properties

[Robert]

On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 13:40 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Why does this justify a keyword? I think Walter's initial proposal of 
> getting rid of @property has more merit than this.

Read the DIP? It is about encapsulation and making set functions
callable with = in order to be compatible with ref returning functions:
(Compatible from set function to ref returning function, not the other
way round) and for the more expressive syntax:
	a=something;
instead of
	a(something);

and so that tools can easily extract what's a property. (For enabling
access from scripting languages for example, like Qt does.)

The one reason why we can not drop it, is  that = calls the set function
on properties. The reason why we should not, is that having such a cool
straight forward feature for providing proper no-boilerplate
encapsulation seems valuable in an OOP enabled language.