--- Comment #13 from Jonathan M Davis <> 2012-07-20 10:06:53 
PDT ---
> Yes, or, quite often I want to write a trivial getter but a nontrivial setter.
> So I'd like just the getter for free. Also, when the interface is going to be
> exported, even a trivial property should often be a property instead of a
> field, to avoid breaking binary compatibility if one changes one's mind and
> wants to make it a property later (actually this even affects source
> compatibility--a property can't be passed by reference).

That's why I've been tempted to suggest that @property on a variable made it so
that only operations which would still be legal if it were switched to being a
property function were allowed. I can't remember whether I ever actually opened
an enhancement request on that though. I'd have to go digging to find out.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to