DIP28, on properties, availabel for destruction as well

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-28 04:00, deadalnix wrote:

> The proposal is to rewrite that to auto a = b.setter(3);
>
> Its value is whatever the setter returns.

Then setters always must return a value. I think it would be better to 
have the compiler rewrite the expression to return what the getter returns.

> Error, w.getter is not an lvalue.

Then you cannot freely change a field to a property.

> That would be an error as well, for the same reason.

That should have of course looked like:

w.setter = __tmp;

If this rewrite is not done then again, you cannot freely change a field 
to a property.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg