On Monday, April 23, 2012 01:39:44 Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > On Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 23:21:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Well, I completely disagree with you on @property. > > Note: my problem is with -property, not @property. > > If @property was correctly implemented, it'd serve > a very nice purpose. The reason I'm aware of the > bug is this is something I've wanted to use before. > > -property is another story entirely.
Well, strict enforcement is how @property was designed in the first place (and is how it's described in TDPL). It just hasn't been enabled as the normal behavior yet in order to give people a chance to fix their code first (and to give the compiler a chance to iron out its property-enforcement bugs). So, you're arguing for a partial implementation of @property. - Jonathan M Davis
