Subject: Re: [boost] [property] interest in C# like properties for C++?
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-21 14:05:12
Stefan Strasser escribió:
> if we were discussing the definition of a new language, I might agree with
> but this is C++. there is no point in a boost library that no one would use
> because using it results in public(!) class interfaces that differ from any
> widely used practice AND the standard library.
Boost.Parameter ? I think I recall reading in D&E that named parameters
were proposed for standarization, and rejected.
If C# properties were possible to implement with a library (that doesn't
rely on UB), I think it should be accepted based on its quality. I would
keep using regular member objects/functions, just as I keep using
regular function parameters.
>> . This means that it can't be used in a chain of assignment
>> operations like A.X(B.X(5)) which incidentally looks awful compared to
>> A.X = B.X = 5. For properties, operator= is greater than operator() ;)
I could settle for A.X() = B.X() = 5, that's good enough for me.
Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk