If you are making designs that would normally have a lot of getters and setters, it suggests that they may have an insufficient level of abstraction. Of course, that isn't neccessarily the case -- but it does seem to be the rule in my code. I personally don't have a need for this facility and I don't think I want a library that would encourage that style.
I don't see what getters and setters have to do with levels of abstraction. Needless to say I see nothing wrong with the style that uses properties, but since you didn't say what bothers you about that style I can't answer for why you don't like it. Care to explain ?
When classes have a lot of getters and setters or, equivalently, exposed properties that are just reflections of underlying data members, they usually represent just a collection of exposed data values rather than a higher level of abstraction.
I agree. And in my expirience I from time to time need exactly something like this. I just need objects of class A have property (string p_type for example). I coud make it just public member std::string p_type. But this would allow anybody by mistake change it. So what I want is readonly property, that would be as close as possible to unsafe public member definition. class_property family of templates serve this purpose. It's not about should or should you not provide a direct access to the class members. It how to facilitate it. Wherther or not it's good design is a bit separate question. IMO it depends on situation and I found in many case good application for properties with very sound design. Gennadiy.