They keep getting pushed back. They may never get implemented, not sure they should be.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:34:10 -0700 (08/22/03 16:34:10)
, Walter <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> They keep getting pushed back. They may never get implemented, not sure they
> should be.
>

!Bombshell!

Oh hang on, that was just a joke, right....please...??



-- 
Derek

No, come on. They're really useful.

I bet if we did a vote, you'd get at least 75% people say they were desirable. (Properties, I mean, not the people!)

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bi4dd4$2o0v$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> They keep getting pushed back. They may never get implemented, not sure
they
> should be.
>
>

Walter wrote:
> They keep getting pushed back. They may never get implemented, not sure they
> should be.

I think they should.
And say, did anyone on the newsgroup ever try to push them back? ;)

-eye

> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bi4dd4$2o0v$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > They keep getting pushed back. They may never get implemented, not sure
> they
> > should be.
> >

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:bi4jn2$1av$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> No, come on. They're really useful.
>
> I bet if we did a vote, you'd get at least 75% people say they were desirable. (Properties, I mean, not the people!)

I vote yes they are a good feature (would have put them before manual object
mem management)

that is instance properties.
I would also like to see class/static properties too as they would help with
templated designs but that can wait for a bit.

I'm lost. What do you guys mean by ETA?

————————————————————————— Carlos Santander


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 2003-08-19

In article <bi5f2b$193q$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
>
>I'm lost. What do you guys mean by ETA?
>
>————————————————————————— Carlos Santander

Estimated Time of Arrival

In other words, "what is the estimated time of arrival (or estimated completion date" for property setters and getters?"

Answer all your acronym questions here...

http://www.acronymfinder.com

--Benji Smith

"BenjiSmith" <dlanguage@xxagg.com> wrote in message
news:bi5gk6$1bdi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
|
| Estimated Time of Arrival
|
| In other words, "what is the estimated time of arrival (or estimated
| completion date" for property setters and getters?"
|

Still not sure of what that means, but thanks.

————————————————————————— Carlos Santander


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 2003-08-19

"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:bi5bgf$13nv$6@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bi4dd4$2o0v$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > They keep getting pushed back. They may never get implemented, not
sure
> > they
> > > should be.
> > >
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:bi4jn2$1av$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > No, come on. They're really useful.
> >
> > I bet if we did a vote, you'd get at least 75% people say they were desirable. (Properties, I mean, not the people!)
>
> I vote yes they are a good feature (would have put them before manual
object
> mem management)
>
> that is instance properties.
> I would also like to see class/static properties too as they would help
with
> templated designs but that can wait for a bit.

I would think once the instance ones are done the class ones would fall out easily, but could be wrong ;)