On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:29:01 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote:
"Leandro Lucarella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I think you have good points about not repeating yourself, but I still
find it too magical. I think I prefer something a little more explicit,
even if I have to repeat myself.
I assume you're referring to the automatic "value" and "set" variables
here,
right? The proposal seems to be getting a lot of complaints about those.
But, I haven't seen any explanations of actual problems with them beyond
"it's magical", "I prefer", etc (unless I've overlooked something, and my
apologies if I have). Any abstraction could be argued to be "magical".
I haven't read all the replies yet, but the one issue I have is similar to
the array's magical length property:
struct S
{
int value;
int prop
{
get()
{
return value; // ambiguous
}
}
}
If you used something that was not a variable name (like the fix for
arrays -- $) then you do not have a conflict.
But I like the idea that Leandro brought up best.
One other issue that his idea solves -- in an internal private method, you
might want to use the underlying storage directly instead of calling the
property for performance reasons, this would be difficult to address with
a context keyword.
-Steve
