Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Thanks. So it looks like get_property() and set_property() could fly. How
does that sound?
Not too much good. Among the simpler solutions there's the 'property'
attribute, that while not helping in reducing code (it makes code longer!)
solves most problems, while being simple. It's the minimal solution that I
think will work/fly.
We can't throw keywords at problems like they're getting out of style. I've
noticed that here every little problem gets solved by a little keyword. If
not, some arcane new syntax. Nobody seems to care about rewriting, which I
think is best.
I don't know if you're just being passive-aggressive here or what. Is
this a response to my post?
I'll ask again: do you have any *technical* issues with the 'property'
attribute suggestion?
My main technical issue is throwing a keyword at a very minor issue.
Once the keyword is in the mix, we need to define how it interacts with
everything else (e.g., are properties overridable?) A solution based on
rewrites is considerably simpler and more in according with the size of
the problem.
Andrei
