On Sunday 07 July 2013 17:04:14 Metodi Todorov wrote:

Is there any interest of "C# property" like library?

struct vec2 { float get_x() const{...} float set_x() const{...} ... property_rw x; vec2() : y(this) {} };

vec2 v; v.x = 15.0f; cout << v.x << endl;

Example: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cproperty/?source=dlp

I must say I'm not sure I see the point of x. You already had to define set_x/get_x, so you already concealed the nature of the property x (which is why properties exist, right?). One additional downside I see is that you have to store this inside the property, which adds to the vec2 object size and also affects its copyability/movability (i.e. you can't just have a default implementation of these functions). And you're bound to the particular signatures of the set/get functions.

07.07.2013 18:04, Metodi Todorov:

Example: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cproperty/?source=dlp

1. Your property_rw, property_ro, property_wo have implicitly declared copy constructor and copy assignment operator, which have wrong semantic - they copy "this", while it must be tied to enveloping object. 2. FYI: I saw somewhere (maybe at stackoverflow) following C++11 approach for properties: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/view?id=1e7d98d17a1f945c3bd4bb3c8d69b204-f... class Widget { int value_; public: PROPERTY ( int, value, (cout << "getter" << endl; return value_;), (cout << "setter" << endl; value_ = x;) ); };

Is there any interest of "C# property" like library?

Personally, I don't remember if I ever need properties. Though, it is possible that there are some application domains where they are needed. I think such kind of property library should be mature and provide convenient interface, in order to be accepted into Boost. -- Evgeny Panasyuk