"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h4i0tu$hi...@digitalmars.com... > > Look at it from a practical standpoint: it *would* be nice to have > dedicated syntax, but Walter *is opposed to it*. He doesn't see the > need for it. > .... > > Some improvement is better than none. Sometimes you have to compromise. > I don't think we should ignore or demonise viable alternatives because > they're not what we specifically wanted.
I suppose you have a good point. Although I felt like I was compromising plenty just with being willing (if necessary) to abandon the automatic internal storage... :/ (I really want that! :) ) I am convinced though, if properties get done in this Walter-friendly manner, it'll become yet another in the list of prospective user's complaints about D. "Yea, I looked at D. Have you seen the syntax for creating properties? OMG, what were they thinking?!"