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

[Max Samukha]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 21:54:21 UTC, Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 21:03:04 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
>> Let's face it: there are *no* objective criteria for 
>> determining whether a mutator should be a function or property 
>> setter.
>
> Yes, but also it's should be a lightweight action (main idea).

I think we need something more measurable than lightweight-ness 
to justify a language feature.

>
> As proposal:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/ydcjggoibjmuuoobgrvq@forum.dlang.org
>
> And C# Property notes
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/w86s7x04.aspx
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x9fsa0sw.aspx
>
> and quote
>
>> At all, it looks like C# style in D Way.
>> --no-parenthesis for current behaviour for non-property 
>> functions.