@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/25/13 3:18 PM, Rob T wrote:
> On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 20:10:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> What really got me upset about it was that here we have one of my
>> favorite modern language features, properties, and then all of a sudden
>> *both* the top #1 and #2 people behind D start trying to gut it if not
>> outright remove it from the language entirely, instead of enacting, or
>> at least promising to *eventually* enact, the long overdue fixes I've
>> been anxiously awaiting.
>
> If I correctly understand Walters proposal and Andrei's view point,
> neither are proposing to fully axe property-like behavior. I stand to be
> corrected, but they both seem to think that enforcement through
> @property is not required, and that's the main point being put on the
> chopping block.
>
> Walter and Andrei may want to clarify since I cannot speak for them.

That's right with the amendment that we're looking for a solution, not 
pushing one. Even the title of the thread is a question.

Clearly properties are good to have. In an ideal world we wouldn't need 
a keyword for them and we'd have some simple rules for determining 
property status (especially when it comes to writes). If syntactic help 
is necessary, so be it. We want to make the language better, not worse.


Andrei