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

[deadalnix]

On Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 16:29:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 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).
>

I have to say it will get my vote if a way if found to make this 
UFCS compliant.