DIP4: Properties

[Michiel Helvensteijn]

Daniel Keep wrote:

>> You do understand that properties with automatic backing storage would
>> probably also not be allowed in interfaces. They'd have the same memory
>> layout problems as fields.
> 
> *blink*

*blink*

> You wouldn't declare a property with automatic backing in an interface;
> that would be specifying implementation which you're not allowed to do.
> 
> I was demonstrating why trivial properties exist in real code.  It's the
> *class* that would declare a property with automatic storage.

Ah, you're talking about the interface to a property, not the property
itself. I see what you mean now. My mistake.

-- 
Michiel Helvensteijn