Comment 3 for bug 996427

One way or the other I vote it should be included.

The original .NET design plan for Property was to allow it to transparently replace a field, so that you didn't have to use superfluous getters/setters from the outset, but instead could add them as required without refactoring other classes. It's always been a plus point for me, and I'd like to see the same principle carried through testing.