Hi, I've been thinking about adding properties to C++ for some time, and I've written several different Property<T> classes, so I've been following this discussion with great interest. IMO C# properties are not as useful as
should be; I think that ideally a property is a declarative expression
Hi, You have nailed several important points. Yes, for "private" setters and getters a class name is required so that the class can be a friend. I also share your belief that using function-style accessors rather than assignment is preferable. I'm attaching an include file that contains a Property class implementation that supports this example notation: struct TestClass { TestClass(): Alpha( 'a' ), Amount( 1001 ), AmountSetOnly( 1024 ), NumberGetOnly( 4096 ) {}; Property<bool> IsCreditCard; Property<int> Count; Property<int> Index; Property<char> Alpha; Property<int, reveal, conceal, TestClass> Number; Property<int, reveal, not_used> Amount; Property<int, not_used, reveal > AmountSetOnly; Property<int, conceal, not_used, TestClass> NumberGetOnly; }; Here "reveal" is analogous to "public" and "conceal" to private. I'm also attaching a test file, so it should be easy to build and see that this works. David -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Strasser Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:16 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [property] interest in C# like properties for C++? Am Wednesday 21 October 2009 02:07:19 schrieb David Brownstein: they that
automatically generates getter and/or setter code.
For example I've been experimenting with a syntax that looks like this:
struct Example { explicit Example( std::string& strName): name( strName ), count( 0 ) { }
Property< std::string, public_get, private_set> name; Property< int, public_get, public_set> count; };
ok, I can see the benefit of that, and it solves the trivial-property-problem much better than my TRIVIAL_PROPERTY macro. but wouldn't you need an additional template argument "Example" so you could be-friend "Example" to enable private access? however, I would keep accessing the property compatible to the established C++ property syntax. so instead of...
x.count = 5;
int I = x.count;
...Example::count would be a function object and you'd write... x.count(5); int I = x.count(); ...so you can exchange the property object with accessor functions at a later time, when you need non-trivial properties. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost