[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 18:46, Jeff Lowery wrote:
> > 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.
That was the original question - many languages do just that :-)
Hrm... see:
http://www.cfdev.com/code_samples/code.cfm/CodeID/39/c/C__Properties_Example
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jnw/OOCourse/Lectures/01.26.html
The point being you could migrate "public int X" to "private int x; public
int X {... methods ...}" whenever you want to put behaviour in your get/set
functions. So you don't need everything to be written in terms of get...
set... to start off with.
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
