From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-23 12:16:07
> > I am using simple class properties facility for some time and found it
> > useful. Actually it's nothing fancy - simple helper classes to eliminate
> > repetitive setter/accessor methods (and no need for language
> If you are making designs that would normally have a lot of getters
> and setters, it suggests that they may have an insufficient level of
> abstraction. Of course, that isn't neccessarily the case -- but it
> does seem to be the rule in my code. I personally don't have a need
> for this facility and I don't think I want a library that would
> encourage that style.
I don't say they all over the place. But the need to something like this is
quite widespread and perfectly valid IMO. For example in my project at work
I have adaptation of old iterator_adaptor design to old compiler. Here I am
using properties to model base and policies members of adaptor, while you
had 4 access methods for them plus 2 definition lines.
In general IMO properties better reflect class design, and contrast it
with something like overridable behavior.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk