Generic Property Implementation

[Mike Franklin]

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 14:34:53 UTC, bauss wrote:
> Would there be a reason why this wouldn't be a good 
> implementation?
>
> If so what and how could it be improved?
>
> Are there flaws in an implementation like this?
> [... snip ...]

I am very interested in this as a potential alternative to the 
binary assignment operators for properties DIP 
(https://github.com/JinShil/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1xxx-mvf.md)

I would like to know if this can be improved to support the 
following:

* binary assignment operators (e.g. +=)
* unary assignment operators (e.g. ++)
* @safe, @nogc, and -betterC compatible
* at least as good code generation as that proposed in the DIP 
when optimizations are enabled.

D has the philosophy that the language should strive to provide 
composable primitives, and delegate syntactic sugar to libraries. 
  I like that philosophy and I think it would prevent an expense 
of limited resources if we could find a good library 
implementation for this.

Mike