@JonB I've thought about that as well... I've actually already implemented __setattr__ in this way for the next build, so that someobj.someProperty = foo is equivalent to someobj.setSomeProperty_(foo).
The problem I see with __getattr__ is that this would break existing code. Something like foo = someobj.someProperty() would fail because the property value wouldn't be callable... I'm generally okay with breaking code during the beta, but I need to think about this a little more than for __setattr__ (which still allows the old syntax).