On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 01:40:52 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 00:25:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 00:55:13 Rob T wrote:
[..]
You know a lot more about implementing compiler magic than I
do, so I'll ask you if you think the effort is doable enough
to justify having property functions that can act like a
drop in replacement for existing variables?
I believe that two main things are needed: [..]
I always thought that having public member variables is a bad
style of programming because of the lack of encapsulation. So,
if there's a language feature that enables you to write public
member variables, and later on, replace them with property
functions, wouldn't that mean that the language is encouraging
this particular kind of bad style of programming?
Belief is rarely a good thing.
public variable are an encapsulation problem if you don't have
properties. Then, a bunch of boilerplate is written because in 1%
of the cases, some logic will be hooked on the variable access.
Allowing properties allow the same level of encapsulation,
without requiring boilerplate up-front.
