Re: @property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-01-27 12:20, Michael wrote:
int CoolThing { in; out; } - auto property without implementation;
int CoolThing { private in; out; } - private setter; public getter;

int CoolThing
{
    in
    {
       _privateCoolThing = @value * 42;
    }

    out
    {
       return 42;
    }
}

Explicit calling: void in_CoolThing(int); int out_CoolThing(); Proper
"Property rewrite" can be implemented.

Property CoolThing looks like code contract for _privateCoolThing. So
it's maybe + or -.

At all, it looks like C# style in D Way.

--no-parenthesis for current behaviour for non-property functions.

Won't this conflict with contracts, which also uses the "in" and "out" 
keywords?

--
/Jacob Carlborg