Has anyone really tried to use @property assuming the optional
assignment syntax will be depreciated? I have.
The results I'm getting is a ton of @property tags in my structs
and classes, much more than I had expected. In one struct, almost
all the functions are tagged @property. I know I can wrap them in
@property: or @property{} but the side effect of that is that I
must be aware of where I'm locating all of the property functions
vs the non-property functions.
In the case where most of my functions get tagged, it's a pain to
be forced to locate them inside the wrapper.
In an effort to reduce the use of @property, I have to guess if
I'm really going to use a given function with the assignment
syntax or not, but that's something I prefer not to be constantly
thinking about, so the tendency is to defer the question and
simply avoid using @property completely.
The reality is that I often don't know if I'll be using one
syntax over the other until usage experience is gained and the
usage context determines the answer. I may even want to use both
forms depending on the use context.
So I'm seriously considering deleting all of the @property tags
already added and to stop inserting new tags, because even if
they somehow can add value, there's definitely far too much
clutter involved causing the opposite of "value". I just don't
want to have to think about something that has no clear answer
until later down the road (if at all).
My attempted use of @property indicates that most people will
simply not use it and instead use the regular function form -
it's much easier that way. You may switch to @property for the
rare situations where an exposed struct/class variable is later
changed into function form, but for me anyway using exposed
variables in production code is an extreme rarity - I only do
that with experimental throw away code.
My two cents, thanks for listening.
--rt
