"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >> I'll ask again: do you have any *technical* issues with the 'property' >> attribute suggestion? > > My main technical issue is throwing a keyword at a very minor issue.
Yeah, it is pretty minor, huh? I mean, it's not like it's been the center of discussion for the past week. And no one has ever complained about it before. Downplaying the size of the issue at hand doesn't make it go away. > Once the keyword is in the mix, we need to define how it interacts with > everything else (e.g., are properties overridable?) Of course they're overridable. They are *functions*. They do everything exactly the same as other functions. *All* the property attribute would do is enforce a property syntax at the use site instead of a function call syntax. > A solution based on rewrites is considerably simpler and more in according > with the size of the problem. A solution based on rewrites has a pretty horrible problem with name ambiguity. And this isn't even a technical concern; you're just saying again that the problem is minor. You have not presented any technical arguments against the property attribute suggestion. So let me get this straight: the property attribute would be better technically, but let's not throw more keywords at it; so instead we suggest attributes, but no, they don't have any useful purpose. WHAT.
