Given the class below:

class Chicken {
  @Operator
  This set(Obj key, Obj? val) {
    return this
  }

  Void main() {
    c := Chicken()
    c["chi"] = "ken" // <-- Compilation Error!
  }
}

I get a compilation error when I try to use the Set shortcut. Am I missing something?

This might be unintentional, but it appears that you are required to have a get operator in order to have a set operator. If you add this line it should work:

@Operator Obj? get(Obj key) { null}

Cool. The good news is that I'm allowed to make the get() private.

Can't think why I should be coerced into providing a getter. Ticket? :)

I just (re) came across a fix for this in my code - should this not be a ticket?

It may be unusual to provide a setter and not a getter, but I don't see why you should be forced into providing both.

I actually do think you should have to define a get when you have a set. Its sort of like having a write-only field. Just seems inherently wrong. But I'd like to hear if anyone else cares one way or the other? Either way I guess I should make the error message more intuitive.

Just to say that this, um, feature has caught me out once again.

Not because I wanted a write-only field(*), but because I wrote test for the setter and implemented it before I thought about the getter. And obviously the setter test wouldn't compile because I hadn't yet written the getter! :(

(*) I still don't see what's wrong with a write-only field. Surely the fact that it has a name, write-only field, means it's an accepted programming paradigm!?