new DIP5: Properties 2

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

>> The property attribute also has the nice property
>> (heh) that you can call the property setters and getters either as
>> properties or as functions (i.e. "r.empty" or "r.empty()").
>> Basically, the behavior would be *exactly* as it is now, except you'd
>> have to explicitly state with which functions it would be legal.
>
> I guess I'd rather not have to specify that. I'd do that on all of my
> functions that don't take parameters. To me that's syntactic noise and an
> unnecessary special case.

Then on this we disagree ;)

>> Or is the idea of introducing the 'property' keyword too controversial?
>
> In this case the keyword isn't even the largest aggravation. The largest
> aggravation is that everybody is with their hand on the syntactic holster
> when they should look into simplifying and unifying, not adding more baroque
> adornments for what is really some function calls.

Oh?  And what's the solution, then, if you don't like opGet/opSet and
don't want to pull out your syntactic pistol?  The status quo?  I
think the sheer volume of messages on this subject alone - not only on
these last few threads but over a period of *years* - shows that many
people aren't satisfied with it.