Yet a new properties proposal

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:46:39 -0400, Dimitar Kolev  
<DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:59:38 -0400, Dimitar Kolev
>> <DimitarRosenovKolev at hotmail.com> 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.
>>
>> At definition time, not usage time.  I want the usage to be identical to
>> fields, otherwise, it's not as seamless.  This makes an important
>> difference for generic code.
>
> What if the compiler just expanding this to well inlining. So a#a = 3  
> would just means a.a = 3 just that the compiler will have easier time  
> understanding this.

If you specify a property at definition by doing int#a, then why do you  
also need to specify it's a property when calling it?  And if it's not  
necessary, then your proposal is no different than adding a keyword.  On  
those merits, it's fine with me if people think int #a is better than  
property int a, but I absolutely don't want to have to modify my code to  
call properties using a #.

-Steve