Possible @property compromise

[TommiT]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 12:04:31 UTC, TommiT wrote:
> [..] it is impossible to invent such an implementation of 
> property concept that would make it possible to first put in a 
> public member variable and later on encapsulate it *without* 
> changing the interface.

And frankly, I think it's a good thing. Because this way we can 
add to D's documentation: "NOTE: properties are *not* 
inter-changeable with public member variables", and thus, 
actively discourage people from writing un-encapsulated 
interfaces which expose public member variables.