Possible @property compromise

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:49:35 -0500, Zach the Mystic  
<reachBUTMINUSTHISzach at googlymail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 01:26:19 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> The compromise is: OK, you want to ditch @property?  I can live with  
>> that as long as we have some way to designate properties.  How about  
>> this?
>
> It's only natural that a person wants to advocate for his or her own  
> proposal. That having been said, can I interest you in mine? :-)
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kdukid$stg$1@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-yqvrjszzlcpmmuyqyxdz:40forum.dlang.org
>
> That a long link. Here's a shorter one if it doesn't work (my experience  
> with these forums is limited, sometimes the line gets truncated wrongly):
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kdukid$stg$1@digitalmars.com?page=2
>
> If it fails to solve any of your problems, perhaps you could tell me how  
> or why. It is necessary to read the whole discussion to get insight on  
> how the proposal is developing. Also note that the top proposal is not  
> directly related to the @property discussion, so you have to skip down a  
> few lines to get to the property part.

What you describe is almost exactly something I suggested when the  
original @property debate occurred.  It's actually a version of C#'s  
properties but with multiple get/set functions.

Can't find it right now, but I found several suggestions of that type.  I  
even found a few that propose exactly what I have!

It actually is a bit depressing, we have to reset the clock back to late  
2009 to start over with properties...

-Steve