• imr1984 (9/9) Feb 15 2004 ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want ...
• J Anderson (7/17) Feb 15 2004 I suggest the terms in and out.
• Ben Hinkle (25/25) Feb 15 2004 "imr1984" wrote in message news:c0nvjl$179...
• J Anderson (10/36) Feb 15 2004 What about
• Matthew (11/52) Feb 15 2004 news:c0nvjl$1794$1@digitaldaemon.com...
• J Anderson (5/22) Feb 15 2004 I guess your talking about the scope here. Yeah, parhaps scope should
• Matthew (5/30) Feb 15 2004 Nah! I was just being a witless smartarse. My point was that it's so eas...
• imr1984 (5/30) Feb 15 2004 yeah something like that. all im saying is that the current method of cr...
• Matthew (18/62) Feb 15 2004 I don't look at underscores and see Hungarian. Sorry
• Manfred Nowak (15/20) Feb 15 2004 You like creating isles?

imr1984 <imr1984_member pathlink.com> writes:

ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want anyone
to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and then
create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like this:

readonly int myVariable;

instead of:

private int _myVariable;
int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}

i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

imr1984 wrote:

ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want anyone
to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and then
create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like this:

readonly int myVariable;

instead of:

private int _myVariable;
int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}

i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

  

I suggest the terms in and out.

out int myVariable; //Readonly
in int myVariable2; //Writeonly
inout int myVariable2; //Default

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle4 juno.com> writes:

"imr1984" <imr1984_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c0nvjl$1794$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want anyone
| to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and then
| create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
| unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like this:
|
| readonly int myVariable;
|
| instead of:
|
| private int _myVariable;
| int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}
|
| i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

What about other the protection attributes? The meaning of a
"readonly" attribute overlaps with the protection attribute.
What does something like

 readonly public int myVariable;

declare? Or, similarly, what about

 readonly private int myVariable;

Any attribute that controls read/write access needs to spell out
how it interacts with the protection attributes. Perhaps some
fancy protection attribute syntax would be better than a separate
attribute - not that I can think of any good suggestions.

-Ben

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Ben Hinkle wrote:

"imr1984" <imr1984_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c0nvjl$1794$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want anyone
| to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and then
| create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
| unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like this:
|
| readonly int myVariable;
|
| instead of:
|
| private int _myVariable;
| int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}
|
| i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

What about other the protection attributes? The meaning of a
"readonly" attribute overlaps with the protection attribute.
What does something like

 readonly public int myVariable;

declare? Or, similarly, what about

 readonly private int myVariable;

Any attribute that controls read/write access needs to spell out
how it interacts with the protection attributes. Perhaps some
fancy protection attribute syntax would be better than a separate
attribute - not that I can think of any good suggestions.

-Ben
  

What about

int myVariable {return myVariable;}

Where myVariable is created implicitly.  This code would be executed 
inside and outside the class for myVariable however the variable would 
only be changeable from within the class.  It wouldn't completely solve 
the private situation but at least the code is still used in private 
situations.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:c0oh8p$22ea$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Ben Hinkle wrote:

"imr1984" <imr1984_member pathlink.com> wrote in message


news:c0nvjl$1794$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want


anyone
| to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and


then
| create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
| unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like


this:
|
| readonly int myVariable;
|
| instead of:
|
| private int _myVariable;
| int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}
|
| i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

What about other the protection attributes? The meaning of a
"readonly" attribute overlaps with the protection attribute.
What does something like

 readonly public int myVariable;

declare? Or, similarly, what about

 readonly private int myVariable;

Any attribute that controls read/write access needs to spell out
how it interacts with the protection attributes. Perhaps some
fancy protection attribute syntax would be better than a separate
attribute - not that I can think of any good suggestions.

-Ben

 What about

 int myVariable {return myVariable;}

 Where myVariable is created implicitly.  This code would be executed
 inside and outside the class for myVariable however the variable would
 only be changeable from within the class.  It wouldn't completely solve
 the private situation but at least the code is still used in private
 situations.

Or, what about

private int _myVariable;
public int myVarable { return _myVariable };

?

:)

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Matthew wrote:

What about

int myVariable {return myVariable;}

Where myVariable is created implicitly.  This code would be executed
inside and outside the class for myVariable however the variable would
only be changeable from within the class.  It wouldn't completely solve
the private situation but at least the code is still used in private
situations.
    

Or, what about

private int _myVariable;
public int myVarable { return _myVariable };

?

:)
  

I guess your talking about the scope here.  Yeah, parhaps scope should 
be fixed for readonly.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:c0oicd$23pj$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew wrote:

What about

int myVariable {return myVariable;}

Where myVariable is created implicitly.  This code would be executed
inside and outside the class for myVariable however the variable would
only be changeable from within the class.  It wouldn't completely solve
the private situation but at least the code is still used in private
situations.

Or, what about

private int _myVariable;
public int myVarable { return _myVariable };

?

:)

 I guess your talking about the scope here.  Yeah, parhaps scope should
 be fixed for readonly.

Nah! I was just being a witless smartarse. My point was that it's so easy to
do what the OP wanted with the code he gave that there's little motivation
to complicate the language by adding the posited keyword

imr1984 <imr1984_member pathlink.com> writes:

yeah something like that. all im saying is that the current method of creating
access properties for member variables is a waste of time, AND it leads to ugly
underscores around the place which makes it look hungarian. And if im not
mistaken Walter hates hungarian :)

In article <c0ofel$1vnb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
"imr1984" <imr1984_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c0nvjl$1794$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want anyone
| to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and then
| create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
| unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like this:
|
| readonly int myVariable;
|
| instead of:
|
| private int _myVariable;
| int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}
|
| i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

What about other the protection attributes? The meaning of a
"readonly" attribute overlaps with the protection attribute.
What does something like

 readonly public int myVariable;

declare? Or, similarly, what about

 readonly private int myVariable;

Any attribute that controls read/write access needs to spell out
how it interacts with the protection attributes. Perhaps some
fancy protection attribute syntax would be better than a separate
attribute - not that I can think of any good suggestions.

-Ben

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 yeah something like that. all im saying is that the current method of

creating
 access properties for member variables is a waste of time,

I think you're overstating the case somewhat

 AND it leads to ugly
 underscores around the place which makes it look hungarian.

I don't look at underscores and see Hungarian. Sorry

 And if im not
 mistaken Walter hates hungarian :)

He does

My point is that this is something that's *easily* handled within the
current faculties of the language. Adding new keywords is a very big deal,
and it has to add very significant utility, that would otherwise be
impossible, or require huge amounts of effort. typeof is a perfect example
of something that should be a keyboard. TMP attributes, such as is_pod,
is_scalar, etc. are also likely to fall into this category.

Your requirement for readonly is understandable and nice, but it's just not
sufficiently difficult to implement your requirements for it to represent
much of an incentive unless other congruent uses for the keyboard are
identified.

 In article <c0ofel$1vnb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
"imr1984" <imr1984_member pathlink.com> wrote in message


news:c0nvjl$1794$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| ok so currently when people want a class member variable they dont want


anyone
| to mess with, they create the variable with a preceeding underscore and


then
| create a read only property for it. So most of the time properties are
| unnesesary and a simple readonly variable would do. something like


this:
|
| readonly int myVariable;
|
| instead of:
|
| private int _myVariable;
| int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}
|
| i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

What about other the protection attributes? The meaning of a
"readonly" attribute overlaps with the protection attribute.
What does something like

 readonly public int myVariable;

declare? Or, similarly, what about

 readonly private int myVariable;

Any attribute that controls read/write access needs to spell out
how it interacts with the protection attributes. Perhaps some
fancy protection attribute syntax would be better than a separate
attribute - not that I can think of any good suggestions.

-Ben

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

imr1984 wrote:

[...]
   readonly int myVariable;
 instead of:
   private int _myVariable;
   int myVariable() {return _myVariable;}
 i hope walter considers this, because it would save time

You like creating isles?

What do you mean:
  public int myVariable() ...
or
  protected int myVariable() ...

And how to express:
  protected int _myVariable
  public int myVariable() ...

Three new keywords for some syntactical sugar? If you want to save time
while typing, then use a macro editor, that can transform your readonly
keyword to the code you desire.

I do not like your proposal.

So long.