Possible @property compromise

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:13:02 -0500, Zach the Mystic  
<reachBUTMINUSTHISzach at googlymail.com> wrote:

> 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

I looked at it, it seems extremely similar to C# properties, which has  
been proposed before.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, I'm saying it's a duplicate of  
what has been proposed.  If it were to be an acceptable solution, I'd be  
on board (though I don't know why we wouldn't use the same notation as C#  
for familiarity).

Don't hold your breath waiting for Walter to respond though, he is  
notoriously silent unless he completely disagrees with you.

-Steve