Possible @property compromise

[TommiT]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 00:25:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 00:55:13 Rob T wrote:
>> [..]
>> You know a lot more about implementing compiler magic than I 
>> do, so I'll ask you if you think the effort is doable enough
>> to justify having property functions that can act like a
>> drop in replacement for existing variables?
>
> I believe that two main things are needed: [..]

I always thought that having public member variables is a bad 
style of programming because of the lack of encapsulation. So, if 
there's a language feature that enables you to write public 
member variables, and later on, replace them with property 
functions, wouldn't that mean that the language is encouraging 
this particular kind of bad style of programming?