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()
}

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
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()
> }
>
>