__property keyword support in GCC

[Joe Buck]

> Thank you very much for showing me this, but:
> 
> I think, that this is not the same, because the __property keyword is only
> gramatical extension, so you don't have to construct new object and
> instance like in your example.

A sufficiently good compiler would optimize this kind of helper class
object away in any case (though we aren't there yet).

> It's a great simplification for me and it can be used not only to confuse
> other people.

If it's valuable to you, you are free to implement it.

> BTW: GCC doesn't support only ANSI C++ standart, but it has it's own
> extensions.  Why not to support (optionally) some (useful?) non-standart
> things?

The extensions are, for the most part, deprecated.  (This means we think
that people shouldn't use them).  Many of these extensions were added
because the compiler didn't know how to do certain optimizations (e.g.
named return values).

If you are asking the GNU C++ maintainers to do the work, you are
implicitly asking them NOT to do other work (e.g. complete the job of
producing an ISO C++ compliant compiler), or at least to delay it.  I
would urge them to ignore such requests until the main job is complete.