On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 18:13:41 H. S. Teoh wrote: > I'm not for throwing it out, actually. :) Just pointing out some > problematic aspects of it. > > One way to solve the '&' problem is to have the compiler lower that into > a delegate that gives access to the setter/getter for that field. Then > @property *would* indeed be a drop-in replacement for member variables.
But the type would be different. You wouldn't be able to do stuff like int* p = &s.prop; And what happens with a delegate is fundamentally different when you take the address of a variable. The property function may not even be returning a value associated with a variable. It could be calculated. I believe that you're trying to take the abstraction farther than is possible. All abstractions break at some point, and taking the address of a property is one place that property functions break as an abstraction for variables. - Jonathan M Davis
