On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:25:12 Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 14:02:51 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > On 12/13/11 10:32 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > On Monday, December 12, 2011 18:00:35 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > >> On 12/12/11 1:12 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > >>> On Monday, December 12, 2011 08:46:18 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > >>>> Insisting on the current property semantics was a sizeable > > >>>> mistake > > >>>> of > > >>>> this community, and I am sorry we gave into it. > > >>> > > >>> Aside from the fact that the behavior of -property isn't the > > >>> default, > > >>> what's the problem with @property? > > >> > > >> Other than it being completely useless, requiring more rote > > >> memorization, and fomenting time-wasting discussion? None. > > > > > > So, you prefer the situation where any function with no arguments > > > can be used as a getter and any function with a single argument can > > > be used as a setter? > > > > No. That would be a false choice. > > I'm not saying that those are the only choices, but you seem to think that > the current situation is worse than what we had before, which I don't > understand. The current situation looks all around better to me.
In fact, what _would_ you prefer to @property if it's not what we had before? - Jonathan M Davis
