D community's view on syntactic sugar

[Seb]

On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 01:06:48 UTC, evilrat wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 June 2018 at 17:48:21 UTC, FromAnotherPlanet 
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 17 June 2018 at 16:52:59 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
>>> The only case where D loses out is compared to { get; private 
>>> set; }.
>>>
>>
>> That's a pretty big thing to give up. That allows for pretty 
>> valuable control over visibility of encapsulated properties.
>
> He means that in D this is split like that, which isn't as 
> clean as C# does
>
> class MyClass
> {
>   private int _myProp; // backing field
>   private @property void myProp(int a) { _myProp = a; } // 
> private setter
>   public @property int myProp() { return _myProp; } // getter
> }

Well the cool part about D is that we can generate such sugar 
without necessarily needing to have it in the language (though a 
better property syntax would be great).
Anyhow here's an example from the accessors package 
(https://github.com/funkwerk/accessors):

import accessors;

class WithAccessors
{
     @Read @Write
     private int num_;
     // list all your fields here

     mixin(GenerateFieldAccessors);
}