Taking address of properties

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/10/2013 01:53 PM, Robert wrote:
> 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?

Stop trolling.

> It is about encapsulation

Perfectly possible without DIP26 and encapsulation can be violated using 
@property as given in DIP26 just as easily as without it.

> 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)

setter(2);

> and for the more expressive syntax:
> 	a=something;

That's not more expressive.

> instead of

You mean as well as.

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

Use UDAs.

> The one reason why we can not drop it, is  that = calls the set function
> on properties.

So does ( ). And both are the case already.

> The reason why we should not, is that having such a cool
> straight forward feature for providing proper no-boilerplate

Boilerplate can be trivially automated.

> encapsulation seems valuable in an OOP enabled language.
>