Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:04:51 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > It's been established in the recent epic-discussions on properties that one > of the biggest uses for properties is to implement publically read-only (but > privately-writable) fields. That got me thinking, why not actually have real > publically read-only fields instead of merely emulating them with > properties? They are, after all, a fairly common idiom. > > // *Not* an actual syntax proposal, but just to get the idea across: > > private @publicread int foo; > > // The class sees it as "int", but everything else sees it as "const(int)" > // ...or something like that...
Um... @publiconst? XD or private int foo; public alias const foo foo; or even private public(const) int foo; Weird... OTOH this should be trivial from the implementation POV. On the even other hand this only worth considering if actual properties are dropped because properties are more generic and you *can* implement a read-only field with them. Maybe some syntactic sugar is in order if it really is such a common thing.
