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

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-01-27 12:20, Michael wrote:
> int CoolThing { in; out; } - auto property without implementation;
>
> int CoolThing { private in; out; } - private setter; public getter;
>
> int CoolThing
> {
>     in
>     {
>        _privateCoolThing = @value * 42;
>     }
>
>     out
>     {
>        return 42;
>     }
> }
>
> Explicit calling: void in_CoolThing(int); int out_CoolThing(); Proper
> "Property rewrite" can be implemented.
>
> Property CoolThing looks like code contract for _privateCoolThing. So
> it's maybe + or -.
>
> At all, it looks like C# style in D Way.
>
> --no-parenthesis for current behaviour for non-property functions.

Won't this conflict with contracts, which also uses the "in" and "out" 
keywords?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg