On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:40:45 -0800, TommiT <[email protected]>
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?
Not really, public fields ARE bad, but properties allow you to sanitize
the data and throw exceptions if the data doesn't fit the spec. A field
does not. In this way encapsulation is maintained.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
