Possible @property compromise

[FG]

On 2013-01-29 18:10, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> If there is no y field, then then the compiler ALSO tries:
> x.setY(...);
>                      [...]
> One problem I will note with this scheme, some Unicode symbols that may be valid
> D symbol starters may NOT have an upper/lower case, making it impossible to use
> those as properties.  But I admit having an English bias so I don't see this as
> a large problem.  Besides, "set" is already English.

It's inconceivable why on earth would you call this a "compromise". :)