Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
But what I want is to come with a new design that adds minimum
aggravation on the learning programmer. If they know how to define a
method, they must know how to define a property. None of that
property blah { get ... set ... } crap is necessary.
I can't be nice about this: Any programmer who has *any* aggrivation
learning any even remotely sane property syntax is an idiot, period.
They'd have to be incompetent to not be able to look at an example
like this:
// Fine, I'll throw DRY away:
int _width;
int width
{
get { return _width; }
set(v) { _width = v; }
}
And immediately know exactly how the poroperty syntax works.
Sure. My point is that with using standard method definition syntax
there's no need for even looking over an example.
Which is why Steven Schveighoffer's is suggestion is the most pragmatic
so far. You just add a "property" attribute to a regular function
definition. (And it doesn't look ugly, unlike the opGet_/opSet_ idea.)
