On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu<[email protected]> wrote: > bearophile wrote: >> >> Andrei Alexandrescu: >>> >>> Thanks. So it looks like get_property() and set_property() could fly. How >>> does that sound? >> >> Not too much good. Among the simpler solutions there's the 'property' >> attribute, that while not helping in reducing code (it makes code longer!) >> solves most problems, while being simple. It's the minimal solution that I >> think will work/fly. > > We can't throw keywords at problems like they're getting out of style. I've > noticed that here every little problem gets solved by a little keyword. If > not, some arcane new syntax. Nobody seems to care about rewriting, which I > think is best.
I don't know if you're just being passive-aggressive here or what. Is this a response to my post? I'll ask again: do you have any *technical* issues with the 'property' attribute suggestion?
