Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-08 04:03:39

Next message: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz: "[boost] [unordered] a strange limitation for move emulation in Boost.Unordered"
Previous message: Sid Sacek: "Re: [boost] [shared_array] Why not in C++11 ?"
In reply to: Joe Mucchiello: "Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?"
Next in thread: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte: "Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?"
Reply: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte: "Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?"

On 8 July 2013 05:31, Joe Mucchiello <jmucchiello_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Personally, I always consider properties with getters/setters an anti-pattern for OOP languages like C++.

C++ is not an OOP, but multiparadigm language.

Best regards,

--
Mateusz  Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

Next message: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz: "[boost] [unordered] a strange limitation for move emulation in Boost.Unordered"
Previous message: Sid Sacek: "Re: [boost] [shared_array] Why not in C++11 ?"
In reply to: Joe Mucchiello: "Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?"
Next in thread: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte: "Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?"
Reply: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte: "Re: [boost] Interest in a 'Boost.property' library?"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk