Benji Smith wrote: > For my money, the best solution is a simple "property" keyword as a > function modifier. Only functions with the "property" modifier would be > allowed to pose as fields (getters called without parens, setters called > using assignment syntax). But, in all other respects, they should act > just like functions.
I like being able to distinguish between the property itself and its setter/getter function. For example, let's say 'y' is a property of 'x'. z = x.y; // Calls the getter. x.y = z; // Calls the setter. z = &x.y; // But what's this? The setter, the getter, or the property itself? That's why I support opSet_foo and opGet_foo (although I'd prefer the simpler get_foo and set_foo). -- Rainer Deyke - [email protected]
