Possible @property compromise

[Zach the Mystic]

On Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 15:40:19 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
> And you have to admit that the way D does properties today is 
> both simple, clever, and appealing. It does have some 
> error-prone liabilities when it comes to callable types and 
> generic programming especially, but beside that I do like the 
> design of the thing. It's a natural extension of UFCS, even 
> though it predates UFCS. Perhaps we should just call it a day 
> and live with the ambiguities. I don't like it, but I don't see 
> any viable alternative.

I'm hoping that the community won't close the books on this issue 
without even *examining* my proposal, found here:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kdukid$stg$1@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-yqvrjszzlcpmmuyqyxdz:40forum.dlang.org

If you want the main points, just read all of the posts by Zach 
the Mystic. I've done my best to defend all criticisms. I simply 
feel obliged to point out to everyone who wants to shut this 
issue down that there is another proposal. You may accuse me of 
being ignorant, or too new to know what I'm saying, but at least 
try to read the proposal and how the arguments against it have 
been defended.

Or just shut me up by saying something about why it's just wrong 
or simply can't work.