Rainer Deyke Wrote: > Sjoerd van Leent wrote: > > I understand your idea, but it is contrary to the common > > understanding that a property is a replacement of a field. As thus, > > from the users perspective, a property should look and act the same > > as a field. > > > > The this rules out another symbol. > > Unless fields use the same new symbol. > > > -- > Rainer Deyke - [email protected]
Yes, but won't that reintroduce the problems that are already available?
