Possible @property compromise

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, February 01, 2013 01:01:02 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I think his suggestions need implemented regardless of what we do
> with @property. I think Walter just felt this would appease the
> pro-property.

Well, it doesn't even come close. For the most part, the pro- at property folks 
want explicit proprties, and that's precisely what Walter is proposing that we 
get rid of.

> writeln = "hi" would not compile with Walters suggested changes.

Only because it's variadic. Something like

range.popFrontN = 7;

_would_ compile. And that's just as bad. We need explicit setter properties in 
order to avoid letting assignment work with functions where it makes no sense 
for it to work.

- Jonathan M Davis