Why is ^^= not part of type definition of integers?

[Max Haughton]

On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:49:00 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:08:28 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:57:33 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 15:27:13 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The rewrite currently only works if you mark your get and set 
>>> functions as property. I am not sure if the rewrite should be 
>>> allowed for functions that are not mark property when it 
>>> comes to ^^= operator for integers.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>
>> You've lost me.
>
> Should g ^^= 2 be allowed for non- at property functions? Where 
> g() is a function call where function definitions void g(int 
> value) and int g() exist.
>
> -Alex
>
> -Alex

@property exists, so I think no.