[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If you have public accessors to a private variable then besides following dogmatic mandates to "always use accessor methods" what exactly is the point?
PS: Properties as implemented in C# make sense to me since developers can add whatever extra logic they need to the property but what you're asking for (automatic generation) does not.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@scenicsoft.com]
Sent: Wed 10/23/2002 10:46 AM
To: 'Karl Waclawek'; Seairth Jacobs; xml-dev
Cc: 'Alaric B. Snell'
Subject: [xml-dev] OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
> And since this can be done in C++ too, the question now is:
> Which languages (except C and Java) do *not* support the feature
> described above (often called "properties")?
What I object to (no pun intended) is having to write all those stinkin'
set/get methods. Why can't I just write:
private, public int foo; // private data member, public
accessors
which will (tacitly) generate:
int getFoo() { return foo;}
void setFoo( int Foo ) { foo = Foo;}
with appropriate calls to super.get/set methods in cases of derived classes.
Then, if I have too, I can override tacit methods by explicitely writing
method bodies.
Okay, Alaric: which language already does this? A hybrid approach such as
XML Schema + Castor is one (imperfect) approach that's not going to win any
popularity contests on this list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
