And you can replace it with a virtual property in the future (changing the underlying implementation) without breaking anything. And user code ends up simpler and more readable too:

foo.baz += foo.bar;

vs.

foo.setBaz( foo.getBaz() + foo.getBar() );

That example reminds me of this recent post on The Old New Thing: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2014/08/14/10549...

Interesting behavior.

Of course, setters don't protect you from this either.