🚀 go-pugleaf

 ENGR@GSSI.MV.COM (Michael Furman) writes:
  ...
 >>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)".

But you can already do this.  Not across the board, but you can do it
if you want.  Just make each attribute a class of it's own.  You can
then overload operator = and operator int and say all of that.

You would probably want to make all of your attributes a class hiarchy
so that you could change their implementations, etc, etc. 

There is not a need to have this in the standard.
It's already there. (In a C++ way)

In article <m0t4Dmy-000glNC@axpblib> martelli@cadlab.it (Alex Martelli) writes:

   (Personally, it's one of their few choices
   that I _dis_like, so, I'm _quite_ happy that C++ doesn't have it:-).

But it does!


---
[ 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. ]