Hi, I like the setter ".value" notation. Although I prefer method-style getters and setters, if others prefer assignment notation then both can be included in a Property class. I experimented with get() and set() methods as well, and discovered that in a MS development environment (VC++ 7.1 or higher), there is a macro with the name "set" that causes problems without a #undef set statement. For this reason I stopped using get/set. I think the notation used to reference properties is less important (to me at least) than having properties be declarative, so that they automatically generate access code. After all a Property is a convenience. In my work I need to package and move a lot of data, so for me to express data members as properties has greatly reduced the amount of boiler-plate code that I have to write (i.e. getters and setters). I agree that simple property definition is desirable, as often a "symmetrical property" (public getter and setter) is desired, and in that (probably most common?) case, it should be easy to write: Property<int> counter; This is easy to do allow by defaulting template parameters. David -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:51 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [property] interest in C# like properties for C++?
A.X() = B.X() = 5 isn't horrible, but A.X = B.X = 5 is what one expects when one thinks of "properties."
Sorry, if I jump in in the middle of the discussion. Boost.Test uses properties with syntax like this: int i = a.p_X; a.p_X.value = 1; This syntax IMO has couple advantages: 1. From encapsulation standpoint this is as good as having explicit setter and getter. 2. I do not like to allow a.p_X = 1. ".value" syntax allows me to grep easily for all the encounters of property modification. This is especially useful in situations where there are myriads of read-only access and only couple mutating ones. 3. Single line definition: readwrite_property<int> p_X; Instead of 3 lines required by data member, getter and setter. 4. I also have readonly_property, which can restrict mutating access to the property value for all classes (in which case property initialized in a constructor once and never changes). Or I can have readonly property with fixed list of classes allowed mutating access. Gennadiy _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost