>> "Attempting to pass a property value outside of allowed writable scope >> as a reference, results in an error." > > ... we definitely shouldn't do this, because it goes against existing > language semantics. You can take a reference to a normal private property > (i.e. private get, private set), pass it outside the class and then modify it.
This was copied from some other source actually. I’m all for staying as close as possible to how the language behaves on this, changing it should be different RFC. Should I just remove this section or do you have suggestions for what we need to specify when it comes references?
