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

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/26/13 8:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-01-25 22:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It's always possible to avoid keywords in favor of syntax. Example:
>
> Declaring a getter:
>
> int foo {}
>
> Just as a regular function declaration but without the parentheses.
>
> Declaring a setter:
>
> void foo= (int value) {}
>
> Append an equal sign to the function name.

This is interesting. I wonder how to make it work for UFCS functions 
(which _do_ have one argument).

Andrei