For further consideration...

[David Goodenough]

On Monday 30 March 2009, Bob Lee wrote:
> David,
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:47 AM, David Goodenough <
>
> david.goodenough at linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > This is NOT the same as saying it is listed as out of scope, and the
> > reason given is that it is likely to be "at least medium sized".  My
> > proposal is (at least to my eyes) smaller than many that are being
> > accepted, and so would therefore seem to fall INSIDE the scope, NOT
> > outside it.
>
> While your proposal may be small on syntax and library changes (I actually
> don't think it's small myself), based on the feedback you received,
> properties in general are obviously big on controversy.
>
> Bob

One tiny little bit of desugaring is all that is needed, and the library 
code is just one short class of just 180 lines so I can not see that it can
be seen as anything but small.  And to borrow (with small modification)
the syntax description from the Field and Method literals proposal is 
just a few lines to be added to the JLS.

I think that questions of controversy seem to be being used as a smoke
screen to block sensible discussion of something which is genuinely
needed.

David