Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [property] interest in C# like properties for C++?
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-21 01:02:19

Am Wednesday 21 October 2009 05:51:39 schrieb Edward Diener:
> > the C++ "properties" syntax is, for example (taken from
> > tr1::unordered_map):
> >
> > float max_load_factor() const;
> > void max_load_factor(float z);
> >
> > I wouldn't even consider your proposed properties syntax "syntactic
> > sugar". it's just a different syntax, not a better one imho.
> >
> > so if there's anything missing from c++ it would be something like
> >
> > #define BOOST_TRIVIAL_PROPERTY(T,name) \
> > T name() const{ return _name; } \
> > void name(T __name){ _name=__name; } \
> > T _name;
> I don't believe a trivial property does very much. While a trivial style
> property such as you mention above could be part of any C++ "property"
> implementation, what is minimally needed beyond that is what the OP's
> property implementation provides, which is the ability to have some sort
> of backing function to set the property at the very least.

I'm not sure if we misunderstood each other or if we just disagree.
so for clarification:
a "backing function to set the property" would be implemented in pure c++,
without any property class:

void max_load_factor(float z){ ... }

and replaces the formerly used

(or better, the property object David proposed)

so what I was trying to say is that C++ already has an established syntax for
properties, except for trivial properties that automatically implement
getters/setters. and that there is no need for another, incompatible,
properties syntax, which I don't even consider "better", just "different".

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at