property syntax strawman

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> I think it's funny that for a week, Andrei has been arguing against
> throwing around new syntax to solve this problem, and that's exactly
> what you guys have come up with.  Really, how much more complicated
> would this make the parser, compared to adding a new attribute?

We couldn't find a good solution without adding new syntax, so this is 
now on the table. Adding syntax or keywords is the next thing to look 
at. I'd still be unsatisfied if:

(a) there would be significant syntactic noise to defining a read-only 
property

(b) we had to add a keyword


Andrei