.. wrote:
> Why didnt the get_ and set_ methods be private like the rest so just the
> Size property thats generated is visible? Doesnt make sense to have them
> visible.

.. wrote:
> Why cant we have C# style property set and get inside a function? Too
> complex? Couldnt this be done via a Switch?

<.> wrote in message news:%23jgzers9DHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> With the below example (taken from MSDN)..
>
> This also makes visible the set_Size and get_Size methods, and generates
> the Size property as we normally see it.
>
> Why didnt the get_ and set_ methods be private like the rest so just the
> Size property thats generated is visible? Doesnt make sense to have them
> visible.
>
>
>
> __gc class MyClass
> {
> public:
> MyClass() : m_size(0) {}
> __property int get_Size() { return m_size; }
> __property void set_Size(int value) { m_size = value; }
> // compiler generates a pseudo data member called Size
> protected:
> int m_size;
> };
>
>

<.> wrote in message news:OLwRhvs9DHA.3820@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Why cant we have C# style property set and get inside a function? Too
> complex? Couldnt this be done via a Switch?
>
> I just dont like having 3 visible points for manipulating a property when
> there should only be one VISIBLE.
>
> Just set it to private maybe ?
>
> <.> wrote in message news:%23jgzers9DHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > With the below example (taken from MSDN)..
> >
> > This also makes visible the set_Size and get_Size methods, and
generates
> > the Size property as we normally see it.
> >
> > Why didnt the get_ and set_ methods be private like the rest so just
the
> > Size property thats generated is visible? Doesnt make sense to have
them
> > visible.
> >
> >
> >
> > __gc class MyClass
> > {
> > public:
> > MyClass() : m_size(0) {}
> > __property int get_Size() { return m_size; }
> > __property void set_Size(int value) { m_size = value; }
> > // compiler generates a pseudo data member called Size
> > protected:
> > int m_size;
> > };
> >
> >
>
>

"Brandon Bray [MSFT]" <branbray@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFo$1Qt9DHA.2404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> . wrote:
> > Why cant we have C# style property set and get inside a function? Too
> > complex? Couldnt this be done via a Switch?
>
> The new C++ syntax coming in the Whidbey release of Visual C++ does make
> properties cleaner. Consider the following:
>
> ref class R {
> private:
> int x; // Backing field
>
> public:
> property int X {
> int get() { return x; }
> void set(int val) { x = val; }
> }
> };
>
> --
> Brandon Bray, Visual C++ Compiler http://blogs.msdn.com/branbray/
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>

"Brandon Bray [MSFT]" <branbray@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Or#I2Pt9DHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> . wrote:
> > Why didnt the get_ and set_ methods be private like the rest so just
the
> > Size property thats generated is visible? Doesnt make sense to have
them
> > visible.
>
> The assumption is that the property should be public because code outside
of
> the class may want to access the property. Choosing the visibility of the
> property depends on the situation.
>
> --
> Brandon Bray, Visual C++ Compiler http://blogs.msdn.com/branbray/
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>