Subject: Re: [boost] interest in properties library
From: Daniel Oberhoff (daniel.oberhoff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-21 17:39:19
> Hello, Daniel.
> Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 4:29:53 PM you wrote:
> DO> What I still want to do is enable simpler syntax and maybe signals
> DO> triggered by property and other goodies, but that is actually
> DO> simple to do, using bind and/or lambda.
> Some time ago I showed another way to define properties for the class.
> I think what this way quite simpler. Take a look:
I saw this in the list. I like the notational simplicity, but it does
it allow run-time addressing of properties (i.e. scripting, setting
properties from config files) and accessing properties without knowing
the full type? The latter becomes important when you don't want to
include headers for everything or load additional classes through
I have also found some properties stuff in the sandbox, especially one
that nice handles property graphs, but none fulfilled the above
So maybe this is too specialized? I thought it would be a great way to
allow scriptable access to properties of classes that are not known at
compile time, and thereby allow easy runtime setup of a modular system.
Thanks for the replies though, some interesting thoughts.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk