@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-01-25 22:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> That's right with the amendment that we're looking for a solution, not
> pushing one. Even the title of the thread is a question.
>
> Clearly properties are good to have. In an ideal world we wouldn't need
> a keyword for them and we'd have some simple rules for determining
> property status (especially when it comes to writes). If syntactic help
> is necessary, so be it. We want to make the language better, not worse.

It's always possible to avoid keywords in favor of syntax. Example:

Declaring a getter:

int foo {}

Just as a regular function declaration but without the parentheses.

Declaring a setter:

void foo= (int value) {}

Append an equal sign to the function name.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg