On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 03:15:55 UTC, Mike Bierlee wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 02:17:18 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 20:25:05 UTC, Mike Bierlee
wrote:
On Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:27:05 UTC, Eugene Wissner
wrote:
It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set num_ and one
to get its value.
It would be great if you could generate @properties instead.
I like the more natural way of accessing those instead of
getters/setters.
What are properties if not "getters" and "setters"? From the
original post: "It would generate 2 methods "num": one to set
num_ and one to get its value."
Two methods named "num". No "get" or "set" in sight.
I was under the impression that you could only access methods
as if they were fields using the @property attribute. After
carefully reading the documentation I see this is not the case
(UFCS does this). Still there are some added benefits from
using @property to completely threat them as fields. It would
be nice if you could add @property to the generated
getters/setters.
Yeah, I see, @property seems to bring some additional features.
Will think about it. Thanks.
