On 2013-01-28 18:07, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Another possibility is to only define @property for setters. This is
something I've come to realize that if we are simply going to allow
omittable parens on getters, there is no functional value to @property
on them except for the rare case of a delegate property. That was
always one of those things where I think too much emphasis was on that
as a reason for @property existence, it's very rare.
I think @property adds clarity and shows intent. For example, now that
we have UDA's I have create a struct called "attribute" which I use as
an attribute for other structs to should be attributes:
struct attribute {}
@attribute struct foo {}
@foo int a;
Here @attribute shows the intent. This is also why I like to have
explicit interfaces and abstract classes compared with C++ which doesn't
not.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
