[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: OT: Save me from typing (was: XML as "passive data")
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 18:46, Jeff Lowery wrote: > > And since this can be done in C++ too, the question now is: > > Which languages (except C and Java) do *not* support the feature > > described above (often called "properties")? > > What I object to (no pun intended) is having to write all those stinkin' > set/get methods. Why can't I just write: > > private, public int foo; // private data member, public > accessors > > which will (tacitly) generate: > > int getFoo() { return foo;} > void setFoo( int Foo ) { foo = Foo;} > > with appropriate calls to super.get/set methods in cases of derived > classes. Then, if I have too, I can override tacit methods by explicitely > writing method bodies. > > Okay, Alaric: which language already does this? A hybrid approach such as > XML Schema + Castor is one (imperfect) approach that's not going to win any > popularity contests on this list. That was the original question - many languages do just that :-) Hrm... see: http://www.cfdev.com/code_samples/code.cfm/CodeID/39/c/C__Properties_Example http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jnw/OOCourse/Lectures/01.26.html The point being you could migrate "public int X" to "private int x; public int X {... methods ...}" whenever you want to put behaviour in your get/set functions. So you don't need everything to be written in terms of get... set... to start off with. ABS -- A city is like a large, complex, rabbit - ARP
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|