Another problem with properties

[Marcin Kuszczak]

Tristam MacDonald wrote:

> I hink what he was getting at is that properties are either functions or
> data members, when in reallity they should be neither. If they are to be
> useful, they need to be flexible enough that they can be either functions
> or a straight data member interchangeably, and that a property implemented
> as data should be overridable with function-type properties.
> 
> How this would be implemented I have no idea, but I believe other
> languages have propper properties?

Yes. I was thinking more less about what you said. But I didn't describe
implementation, just use-cases.

>From implementation point of view maybe it would be possible to translate
automatically (by compiler) following definition:

interface I {
        int x;
}

into:

interface I {
        int x();
        void x();
}

where necessary. In derived classes this translation could also happen if
there is declaration of the symbol x:

class A {
   int x;
     |   // translation happens as x is same symbol as in interface.
    \|/
   int x() {
     return _x;
   }
   void x(int x) {
     _x=x;
   }
}

It seems to solve my initial problem.

But above is just from top of my head - probably someone can propose better
solution...

-- 
Regards
Marcin Kuszczak (Aarti_pl)
-------------------------------------
Ask me why I believe in Jesus - http://zapytaj.dlajezusa.pl (en/pl)
Doost (port of few Boost libraries) - http://www.dsource.org/projects/doost/
-------------------------------------