Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Chad J" <chadj...@__spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> The only thing it doesn't solve is the optional >> implicit backing storage to satiate all of the DRY fans. > > As far as I can tell, that seems to only be me :/ > >
I appreciate it too. I suppose it's not super-important to me because I am willing to eat a bit of cruft for the sake of progress, but yeah, I would like to see some kind of implicit backing to make things less hackey looking in my code.
