Re: [boost] [property] interest in C# like properties for C++?

Subject: Re: [boost] [property] interest in C# like properties for C++?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-21 04:27:08

Stefan Strasser wrote:
> Am Wednesday 21 October 2009 06:02:23 schrieb Edward Diener:
>>> 	x.count(5);
>>> 	int I = x.count();
>> I do not believe this is the right syntax for accessing properties. The
>> idea of a "property" is that one uses syntax to access it as if it were
>> a data object, while it still has the backing of a function to provide
>> constraints.
> 
> why? there is no widely used practice to use public data objects.
> so why would you need a property to emulate that syntax?
> 
> while you might not consider accessor functions a property in the language 
> construct sense, they do represent a property of the object they're a part 
> of. this is widely used in the C++ standard library and boost.
> what's the rationale for another properties syntax?

Properties are just syntactic sugar for accessors to retrieve or set a 
"data" value which is part of an object. In other languages in which 
properties exist, such as C#, C++/CLI, C++ Builder, and Python, the 
syntax uses the form of "x = value" to set the "data" value x and 
"variable = x" to retrieve the "data" value x. There is nothing which 
intrinsically makes this form of syntactic sugar better or worse than "x 
= value()" and "variable = x()", as you suggest, other than common usage 
in other languages and the concept that a property represents at least 
theoretically some piece of "data" of that object, even though that 
"data" may not actually exist.

I think it would be wise to keep the same syntactical form for property 
in C++ which commonly exists in other languages.