I was thinking about using a template which would generate a variable and
its getters/setters automatically.
Something like this:

mixin var!(int,"_name","rwr-");

// private int _name
// public int name(){return _name};
// protected void name(int value){_name=value};

What do you think about something like that?

Also, it would be nicer if it would take:
mixin var!(int _name, "rwr-");
But I don't know how to get the name that way.

Saaa wrote:

> I was thinking about using a template which would generate a variable and
> its getters/setters automatically.
> Something like this:
> 
> mixin var!(int,"_name","rwr-");
> 
> // private int _name
> // public int name(){return _name};
> // protected void name(int value){_name=value};
> 
> What do you think about something like that?

I'm not sure it is very useful. I can think of a couple of reasons to define simple getter / setters:

- must be done when implementing an interface
- binary compatibility perhaps (again: interfaces)
- you will or might add functionality to the get/set functions at a later
stage.

If these are the only reasons, I would just go ahead and implement the get/set functions manually. Then again it may be useful depending on your application.

One more thing you could use this for is adding functionality to get/set functions:

template DefaultImplementation(T, string name)
template LoggingImplementation(T, string name)
template UndoRedoImplementation(T, string name)

mixin var!(DefaultImplementation(int, "_name")
mixin var!(LoggingImplementation(int, "_name")
mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation(int, "_name")

Lutger wrote:
...
> 
> mixin var!(DefaultImplementation(int, "_name")
> mixin var!(LoggingImplementation(int, "_name")
> mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation(int, "_name")

Sorry, these would be:

mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation, int, "_name") etc.

where UndoRedoImplementation is an alias

Lutger wrote:
> I'm not sure it is very useful. I can think of a couple of reasons to
> define
> simple getter / setters:
>
> - must be done when implementing an interface
> - binary compatibility perhaps (again: interfaces)
> - you will or might add functionality to the get/set functions at a later
> stage.
>
> If these are the only reasons, I would just go ahead and implement the get/set functions manually. Then again it may be useful depending on your application.
I thought about using something like this because especially in larger
classes
I tend to forget how certain variables are defined and this way it would all
be nicely packed at the top of the class (still fitting within a single
screen).

>
> One more thing you could use this for is adding functionality to get/set functions:
>
> template DefaultImplementation(T, string name)
> template LoggingImplementation(T, string name)
> template UndoRedoImplementation(T, string name)
>
> mixin var!(DefaultImplementation(int, "_name")
> mixin var!(LoggingImplementation(int, "_name")
> mixin var!(UndoRedoImplementation(int, "_name")
>
Undo Redo, I think I've never had the use for those but maybe I'll let them in my consciousness for a while :)