On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 01:35:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I believe that the way that this sort of enhancement has typically been suggested
>
Oh hey, I remember the DIP23 madness.  Is it that time again already?

> is to do something like
>
> public @property int value;
>
Yes.  Please, yes.  This kills so much boilerplate.

(In fairness, DIP23 was pretty good, aside from the address-of shenanigans and lack of low-hanging operator rewrites.)

-Wyatt

On 07/05/2013 03:53 PM, Wyatt wrote:
> On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 01:35:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> I believe that the way that this sort of enhancement has typically
>> been suggested
>>
> Oh hey, I remember the DIP23 madness.  Is it that time again already?
>
>> is to do something like
>>
>> public @property int value;
>>
> Yes.  Please, yes.  This kills so much boilerplate.
>
> (In fairness, DIP23 was pretty good, aside from the address-of
> shenanigans and lack of low-hanging operator rewrites.)
>
> -Wyatt

DIP24 FTW!

On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 01:42:06 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> You should probably try using template mixins, if all you need to do is
> expand some code.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1294

On 2013-07-05 14:31, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

> Related: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1485
>
> Although this pull does the opposite of what's requested here.

In this case I don't think you want to show the methods the mixin expands to.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg