Boost logo

Boost :

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at