On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
>> The property attribute also has the nice property >> (heh) that you can call the property setters and getters either as >> properties or as functions (i.e. "r.empty" or "r.empty()"). >> Basically, the behavior would be *exactly* as it is now, except you'd >> have to explicitly state with which functions it would be legal. > > I guess I'd rather not have to specify that. I'd do that on all of my > functions that don't take parameters. To me that's syntactic noise and an > unnecessary special case. Then on this we disagree ;) >> Or is the idea of introducing the 'property' keyword too controversial? > > In this case the keyword isn't even the largest aggravation. The largest > aggravation is that everybody is with their hand on the syntactic holster > when they should look into simplifying and unifying, not adding more baroque > adornments for what is really some function calls. Oh? And what's the solution, then, if you don't like opGet/opSet and don't want to pull out your syntactic pistol? The status quo? I think the sheer volume of messages on this subject alone - not only on these last few threads but over a period of *years* - shows that many people aren't satisfied with it.
