Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp
Ltd at Cisco) wrote:
I think there's been two responses to this query:
1. We can't have properties in interfaces because interfaces don't have
properties. I would say this is tautological and doesn't add anything.
2. Why would you need to? Getters and setters work.
So I suppose to answer my question for myself, there's no real technical
reason for not having properties in interfaces, but getters and setters
work just fine and no-one (including me) really misses them.
I have to agree. Enforcing existence of a property is just as much part
of an interface as enforcing the existence of a method. Why go down the
clutzy getter and setter method route when properties were meant to be
accessed. Why should code be made slower? Methods are at least an order
of magnitude slower than direct property access.
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm glad someone out there agrees with me.
--
Jeremy Privett
C.E.O. & C.S.A.
Omega Vortex Corporation
http://www.omegavortex.net
Please note: This message has been sent with information that could be
confidential and meant only for the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete all copies and inform us of the error as soon
as possible. Thank you for your cooperation.
