🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <44spqj$j37@nn.fast.net>, 
jpm@nscs.fast.net (John McGrath)says...
>  ......
>The ideal would be to eliminate altogether accessor functions from the
>class interface.  Whether an attribute of a class is implemented as a
>variable or a function is not important to the source interface.
>Instead, there would simply be attributes, which could be accessed
>(i.e. square.Area).  Whether these were implemented as a data member or
>as a function (i.e. { return height * width; }) is not particularly
>relevent to the caller, so why should he specify "Area()" rather than
>simply "Area".

It is so close to my ideal. But I have one addition. You described "abstract 
read source interface". I would like to have also "write interface": to let 
caller write just "square.Area = 10;" instead of "square.Change_Area(10)".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Michael Furman,                                   (603)893-1109
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.              fax:(603)889-3984
13 Klein Drive - P.O. Box 97                      engr@gssi.mv.com 
North Salem, NH 03073-0097                        71543.1334@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]