Yet a new properties proposal

[Dimitar Kolev]

Dimitar Kolev Wrote:

> Robert Fraser Wrote:
> 
> > Dimitar Kolev wrote:
> > > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I don't see what advantages this has over other proposals.  What is wrong  
> > >> with a.a such that we have to resort to a#a?
> > >>
> > >> -Steve
> > >>
> > > 
> > > People are crying over compilers not know which is a property and which is not.
> > 
> > Actually, one of the major "features" of properties is that any field 
> > can be changed into a property without any changes to existing code.
> > 
> > If you're looking for an unused symbol, @ is likely a better choice than #.
> 
> I do not care what symbol it is as long as it is not used before and that you can spot it from a distance.
> 
> When you see a.a = 3 and a at a = 3 you immediately know which is what without having to look for the definition of a in the class hierarchy.
> 
> Walter did this already with the templates !(.
> 
> You can mistake a!(a) with a(!a) but who cares. !( is still understandable enough. Way better than the unambiguous <>.

Ambiguous I meant sorry.