> I can unequivocally say that I think that this DIP is a horrible idea. While > it may need some work, DIP 23 is worlds better. I definitely think that > @property should be implemented as originally intended save for the > unfortunate fact that we have to keep parenless function calls around. And > this DIP definitely isn't going in that direction at all. I'm completely > against anything which would involve not having @property on front, and I > think that it's a complete disaster to try and disallow UFCS properties. > > - Jonathan M Davis
If you really think this way, then I really don't understand why you embraced my idea of: @property int a; so much. It does not make any sense at all, if property has not the meaning you seem to think it should have, when embracing this idea. If you allow @property qualified functions returning ref, then you basically consider public int a; a valid property and what should this @property int a; be good for? In fact, for the people who don't consider properties a means of encapsulation, but just about convenience syntax and forbidden parentheses, I completely understand why they think that @property int a; would be bullshit. If property does not mean encapsulation, then why should an @property qualified field mean encapsulation?!