• Bill Baxter (16/16) Aug 08 2009 Interesting thing I found out about C# properties.
• grauzone (9/29) Aug 09 2009 C# doesn't allow you to directly call the accessors (which are named
• Bill Baxter (5/33) Aug 09 2009 t's
• Steven Schveighoffer (10/44) Aug 10 2009 It used to be in C++.NET (at least the .NET 1.0 version) you HAD to

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

The syntax

int Thing {
   get { return _thing; }
   set { _thing = value; }
}



int prop_Thing() { return _thing; }
void prop_Thing(int value) { _thing = value; }

Just thought it was interesting given all our discussions,

was proposing we use for D's syntax.  And I think I even said that was
fine, but let's have a different syntax for declaring that the D
compiler translates into those prop_Thing methods.  Well, it turns out


--bb

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:

 The syntax
 
 int Thing {
    get { return _thing; }
    set { _thing = value; }
 }
 

 
 int prop_Thing() { return _thing; }
 void prop_Thing(int value) { _thing = value; }
 
 Just thought it was interesting given all our discussions,

 was proposing we use for D's syntax.  And I think I even said that was
 fine, but let's have a different syntax for declaring that the D
 compiler translates into those prop_Thing methods.  Well, it turns out



set_Thing and get_Thing, btw.). It also creates and associates metadata 
with the property (so that you know that "Thing" is supposed to be a 
property with these setters and getters).


it's just that on the lowest level, it is mapped to normal methods + 
extra metadata.

That's probably not quite what was proposed.

 --bb

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM, grauzone<none example.net> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:

 The syntax

 int Thing {
 =A0 get { return _thing; }
 =A0 set { _thing =3D value; }
 }



 int prop_Thing() { return _thing; }
 void prop_Thing(int value) { _thing =3D value; }

 Just thought it was interesting given all our discussions,

 was proposing we use for D's syntax. =A0And I think I even said that was
 fine, but let's have a different syntax for declaring that the D
 compiler translates into those prop_Thing methods. =A0Well, it turns out



 set_Thing and get_Thing, btw.). It also creates and associates metadata w=

ith
 the property (so that you know that "Thing" is supposed to be a property
 with these setters and getters).



t's
 just that on the lowest level, it is mapped to normal methods + extra
 metadata.

I see.  I thought you could call get_Thing, set_Thing directly.

--bb

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:53:23 -0400, Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM, grauzone<none example.net> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:

 The syntax

 int Thing {
   get { return _thing; }
   set { _thing = value; }
 }



 int prop_Thing() { return _thing; }
 void prop_Thing(int value) { _thing = value; }

 Just thought it was interesting given all our discussions,

 was proposing we use for D's syntax.  And I think I even said that was
 fine, but let's have a different syntax for declaring that the D
 compiler translates into those prop_Thing methods.  Well, it turns out



 set_Thing and get_Thing, btw.). It also creates and associates metadata  
 with
 the property (so that you know that "Thing" is supposed to be a property
 with these setters and getters).


 it's
 just that on the lowest level, it is mapped to normal methods + extra
 metadata.

 I see.  I thought you could call get_Thing, set_Thing directly.

It used to be in C++.NET (at least the .NET 1.0 version) you HAD to  
call/define properties that way ;)  I think they've since added syntax to  
C++.Net to have more friendly property access.  I'm not sure if you can  
still call the get_/set_ versions, but knowing Microsoft's propensity for  
backwards compatibility, you probably can...


though I've never found a need to.  One possible reason is to pass it as a  
delegate.

-Steve