• Röttgar Jones <Röttgar_member pathlink.com> Aug 03 2003
• "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> Aug 03 2003

Röttgar Jones <Röttgar_member pathlink.com> writes:

hi everybody,

i think i came across an error in the classes reference where it's about the
convenient way to avoid different get and set member functions for changing a
class' field.
using the given example did not compile but gave me an "cannot implicitly
convert int to void(int newproperty)" error message. though i am by far not 100%
familiar with c-like languages i do think that the syntax is allright.
so is it a bug or am i just missing a semicolon?

cheers, röttgar jones

ps:

-- the erroneous code --

class Abc
{	
int myprop;
void property(int newproperty) { myprop = newproperty; } // set'er
int property() { return myprop; }	// get'er
}


void main()
{	
Abc a;
a.property = 3;		// equivalent to a.property(3)
int x = a.property;		// equivalent to int x = a.property()
}

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:

AFAIK, properties are still on the to-do list, sadly.

"Röttgar Jones" <Röttgar_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bgk2ak$898$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 hi everybody,

 i think i came across an error in the classes reference where it's about


 convenient way to avoid different get and set member functions for


 class' field.
 using the given example did not compile but gave me an "cannot implicitly
 convert int to void(int newproperty)" error message. though i am by far


 familiar with c-like languages i do think that the syntax is allright.
 so is it a bug or am i just missing a semicolon?

 cheers, röttgar jones

 ps:

 -- the erroneous code --

 class Abc
 {
 int myprop;
 void property(int newproperty) { myprop = newproperty; } // set'er
 int property() { return myprop; } // get'er
 }


 void main()
 {
 Abc a;
 a.property = 3; // equivalent to a.property(3)
 int x = a.property; // equivalent to int x = a.property()
 }