@property needed or not needed?

[Maxim Fomin]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:38:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:28:30 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>> On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:09:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 14:00:16 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>>>> Returning void instead of int in the example break 
>>>> assignment chaining a = b = c. Besides, how such implicitly 
>>>> defined functions may call user defined code (check input 
>>>> validity, call events, etc.)?
>>>
>>> It should not if evaluating the value of (b = c) will call 
>>> getter for b.
>>
>> Why getter and not setter? Expression a = b = c = d should 
>> call getter for d and setter for rest of them. And if c setter 
>> returns void the chain breaks.
>
> "a = b" calls setter

Agree.

> "(a = b)" calls setter first, getter second

How it can call setter for a if b is not evaluated? This 
expression is rewritten to setter function call with argument 
that getter provides.

> "x = b = c" is same as "x = (b = c)" thus calls setter, then 
> getter and then setter again

It should be rewritten to a.setter(b.setter(c.getter()))

> I don't know how it is done know, but that is quite logical 
> C-like approach based on the fact that result of expression (a 
> = b) is equal to a.

Yes, that is why if setter for "a" defaults to void and not to 
typeof(b) assignment chaining is broken.