• Saaa (11/11) Oct 21 2009 I was thinking about using a template which would generate a variable an...
• Lutger (18/29) Oct 22 2009 I'm not sure it is very useful. I can think of a couple of reasons to de...
• Lutger (5/9) Oct 22 2009 Sorry, these would be:
• Saaa (8/26) Oct 22 2009 I thought about using something like this because especially in larger

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

I was thinking about using a template which would generate a variable and 
its getters/setters automatically.
Something like this:

mixin var!(int,"_name","rwr-");

// private int _name
// public int name(){return _name};
// protected void name(int value){_name=value};

What do you think about something like that?

Also, it would be nicer if it would take:
mixin var!(int _name, "rwr-");
But I don't know how to get the name that way. 

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Saaa wrote:

 I was thinking about using a template which would generate a variable and
 its getters/setters automatically.
 Something like this:
 
 mixin var!(int,"_name","rwr-");
 
 // private int _name
 // public int name(){return _name};
 // protected void name(int value){_name=value};
 
 What do you think about something like that?

I'm not sure it is very useful. I can think of a couple of reasons to define 
simple getter / setters:

- must be done when implementing an interface
- binary compatibility perhaps (again: interfaces)
- you will or might add functionality to the get/set functions at a later 
stage. 

If these are the only reasons, I would just go ahead and implement the 
get/set functions manually. Then again it may be useful depending on your 
application. 

One more thing you could use this for is adding functionality to get/set 
functions:

template DefaultImplementation(T, string name)
template LoggingImplementation(T, string name)
template UndoRedoImplementation(T, string name)

mixin var!(DefaultImplementation(int, "_name")
mixin var!(LoggingImplementation(int, "_name")
mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation(int, "_name")

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Lutger wrote:
...
 
 mixin var!(DefaultImplementation(int, "_name")
 mixin var!(LoggingImplementation(int, "_name")
 mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation(int, "_name")

Sorry, these would be:

mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation, int, "_name") etc.

where UndoRedoImplementation is an alias

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

Lutger wrote:
 I'm not sure it is very useful. I can think of a couple of reasons to 
 define
 simple getter / setters:

 - must be done when implementing an interface
 - binary compatibility perhaps (again: interfaces)
 - you will or might add functionality to the get/set functions at a later
 stage.

 If these are the only reasons, I would just go ahead and implement the
 get/set functions manually. Then again it may be useful depending on your
 application.

I thought about using something like this because especially in larger 
classes
I tend to forget how certain variables are defined and this way it would all
be nicely packed at the top of the class (still fitting within a single 
screen).

 One more thing you could use this for is adding functionality to get/set
 functions:

 template DefaultImplementation(T, string name)
 template LoggingImplementation(T, string name)
 template UndoRedoImplementation(T, string name)

 mixin var!(DefaultImplementation(int, "_name")
 mixin var!(LoggingImplementation(int, "_name")
 mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation(int, "_name")

Undo Redo, I think I've never had the use for those but maybe I'll let
them in my consciousness for a while :)