Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > ... > > The only issue with this is if the type returned from the getter > actually defines a get field or method. While having a method called > get might be a likely possibility, having that on a type that is likely > to be returned as a property is probably unlikely. There is of course a > workaround: > > ... > > -Steve
Or you could just use __traits and avoid having to invent increasingly obtuse layers of syntax.
