From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-23 12:22:01
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I am using simple class properties facility for some time and found
>> it quite useful. Actually it's nothing fancy - simple helper classes
>> to eliminate repetitive setter/accessor methods (and no need for
>> language extensions).
> 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 see what getters and setters have to do with levels of abstraction.
Needless to say I see nothing wrong with the style that uses properties, but
since you didn't say what bothers you about that style I can't answer for
why you don't like it. Care to explain ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk