On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 11:13:19 UTC, jerro wrote:
to the one used for functions. That way, you can avoid verbosity and the need to use implicit parameters
What do you eran from that? Sparing "value" as a reusable identifier? You define a getter at the top of the class, then finding a setter three screens lower and you finnaly learn that the property is not that "read-only"?
I think the first step into better property definition/implementation/comprehension would be exactly that: to force the code of the getter and the code of the setter to stick together.
Yes, exactly at the user of a property I was thinking. That user is also a programmer, but he does not do the implementation of the property, just using it.
The confusion does not lie with that user, but it was sparked when the implementation decision was made, in the very heads of those who started implementing properties as just-another-function.
This confusion propagates from the implementors to the user, as the (usage) syntax issues are issues for the user.
It also does not help that, for the time being, the users of properties are also the implementors of properties. There is not much objectivity in this case.
