DIP4: Properties

[Lutger]

Daniel Keep wrote:

> 
> 
> Lutger wrote:
>> I do think this proposal is better than what we have since it meets the
>> major requirements, but have one minor point of critique:
>> 
>> Offering a mixin is not a good enough argument to address the DRY
>> shortcoming. While it may be acceptable in many cases, it is ugly and
>> messes with reporting of errors, debugging, code coverage and profiling.
> 
> Very true.  We really need to come up with a way to fix this.  That
> said, I sometimes think that string mixins will NEVER get fixed unless
> Walter has a strong impetus to do so: i.e., people are using them and
> hurting.
> 
> But that's another DIP for another day.  :P

I'm very curious when that day arrives what it could bring. AST macros may 
help with some issues, but this kind of trickery seems to me inherently 
unfriendly for tools and maintainers alike. Not that it's a bad thing 
though, you have to make some trade-offs somewhere.