Hello .NET, D Here Calling

[Daniel de Kok]

On 2008-12-24 02:52:56 +0100, "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> said:

> "Daniel de Kok" <me at nowhere.nospam> wrote in message
> news:girn6u$2sn4$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 2008-12-23 22:10:53 +0100, "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> said:
>>> It's far more than a mere presumption:
>>> 
>>> class Foo{
>>> public int x;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> // vs
>>> 
>>> class Foo{
>>> private int _x;
>>> public int getX() {
>>> return x;
>>> }
>>> public void setX(int x) {
>>> _x = x;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> It would take a Java mentality to find the second to be every bit as good
>>> as
>>> the first. Yes, it's functionally equivilent, but it's a horrid mess
>> 
>> I happen to disagree :^).
>> 
>>> provides absolutely no benefit in a language that supports properties.
>>> Note
>>> also, that the second form provides absolutely no more encapsulation
>>> benefits than the first.
>> 
>> It *does* provide more encapsulation, since you could modify the getter or
>> setter without changes for the called. This was supposed to be one of the
>> advantages of encapsulation (and it is).
>> 
> 
> How is that any different from the first form (in a language that supports
> properties)?

I am not saying it is different. I was just replying to your statement 
considering the example that the second form does not provide more 
encapsulation.

-- Daniel