220 6027 <1377884786.3009.51.camel@sara> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Magnus Fromreide Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Re: Properties Syntax Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:46:26 +0200 Lines: 46 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <1377884786.3009.51.camel@sara> References: <1377881224.3009.39.camel@sara> <0a76765c-ad46-4013-877e-6f98cd319426@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377884787 1769 80.91.229.3 (30 Aug 2013 17:46:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:46:27 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDELLREETMBRB5FUQOIQKGQEQY3DYUI@isocpp.org Fri Aug 30 19:46:29 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f200.google.com ([209.85.217.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VFSmD-0000T0-Pw for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:46:29 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f200.google.com with SMTP id y6sf2517537lbh.3 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=JAKjT7xlw32Y8X6qP5C/0oKLva0fXVj96oqxXS3VH+I=; b=HbvavXUC/N86/8U0yTGlxq0m0Ru8IjrBuYMXGEMzvveTRsOGDM4mCdHE2AlctaDCba Zdq0qnFsHxiaS+M/KfzuNs5BXdPXAqoSAsUsixmTPNRN5yg5MlP12a8YM3YoNgSJ6PfB Aqiq/PL3T38CU6qoXeuRH59K2tZrrarcIKl1YdURdrDZhSo4qaYMosglw348g6vQySX2 reij2GtiPcIm33Pknmw3Y3DZZkMCHEDilpjqfD8yRVaKz8QqDpzlmB7BH2K8yxcnwtZW 3JSHZg5hyLXomVmPJf6WIcRUvWeul/qN58g9jsgm/mlUsazYFJyJ3QzDQWzGCQbpeUcl SGlQ== X-Received: by 10.152.30.33 with SMTP id p1mr2680559lah.8.1377884788620; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:46:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.121.36 with SMTP id lh4ls455133lab.89.gmail; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.149.197 with SMTP id uc5mr8697173lbb.19.1377884787704; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se. [2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ao5si4965824lac.144.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of magfr@lysator.liu.se designates 2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3; Original-Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2711540012 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:46:27 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.101] (h-176-10-249-241.na.cust.bahnhof.se [176.10.249.241]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 079D640011 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:46:27 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <0a76765c-ad46-4013-877e-6f98cd319426@isocpp.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-4+b1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Original-Sender: magfr@lysator.liu.se X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of magfr@lysator.liu.se designates 2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=magfr@lysator.liu.se Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:6027 Archived-At: On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 10:01 -0700, Bengt Gustafsson wrote: > Magnus: > > > You are of course right that from a clearness standpoint a function > call should look like one and a member access look like that. > > > So the question is whether this is more important than being able to > migrate from variable to method without breaking existing usages. > I think that is one of the big questions here. > I know that many think that global data members are a no-no, but isn't > that a consequence of considering the possibility that checking of the > value or action on its change may be needed in the future, and thus > actually the only solution to the migration problem being promoted to > a self-sufficient rule. Apart from the scare of future code breaking > changes, why would setting a member by calling setters be better than > setting it directly? At least this is the usual motivation for > setters/getters I have seen in text books. > I do not think setters/getters are a good thing either, just that they are better than public members but I admit that the reason they are better is as outlined above. The reason they are bad is that they expose internal parts of the object, just like public members do. I prefer if the code is at a higher level so I have a Square with two constructors, one taking a distance and the other taking an area. When I want to change my Square instance using either property i construct a new Square and assign it to the original one. Yes - sometimes this won't work but that is a problem for those times. /MF -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .