Properties

[Ary Borenszweig]

Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
>> 1. Like in C#, you shouldn't need to define paramater lists for "set" and
>> "get". They're always going to be the same. In the case of "set", it's
>> always going to be just the one param, and it'll be the new value, so just
>> make a special predefined var. Something like:
>>
>> get { return this.len; }
>> set { this.len = value; } // "value" (like in C#), or "$" or something
>> like that
> 
> I have to disagree. By that logic, we would abolish parameter-names
> altogether and access formal parameters by number. set has a parameter, and
> the programmer should be able to name it.

It's very different. A setter has a very specific meaning: set some 
value. That's why it's called "value". Another name could be the name of 
the property ("len") or something like "newLen". Which other name would 
you use?

A general function can have any kind of meaning, and so its parameters, 
and that's why it's ok to have names for them.

> 
> Also, removing the parentheses would be confusing.

That's more a matter of taste. In C# I find this ok.

  I believe it might be
> better to make them look like this, even:
> 
> property int length {
>     auto get() { .. }
>     void set(auto name) { .. }

name? But it's the length. :-P