This looks like intended behavior. After a quick test, it appears that the language allows you to use if (this.test != nTest), which, I think, is less ambiguous than just test anyway, making it clearer that you're using a property accessor but not being explicit about it.

Yes, I checked and if (this.test != nTest) works as expected.

Looks like property access in ObjectiveC and is much more clean than get_test().

Thank you!

I'll look into this behaviour. At the very least to add an explanation about it in the manual. If possible I'll make improvements to the compiler to either allow the access, or give a better error message.