From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ff80a74f45b5cd3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,8ff80a74f45b5cd3
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison)
Subject: Re: Visibility and access to "public" attributes
Date: 1997/09/03
Message-ID: <EFxApt.98F@syd.csa.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 269680748
Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50
References: <01bcb787$eeb5a180$7e80400a@gavinspc>
Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney
Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Gavin Collings wrote:

:...Would you care to contrast the Eiffel mechanism
:(objectively, of course) with that specified for Delphi properties. 

I probably shouldn't since I'm not familiar with Delphi. However, I'm tempted
to offer a few comments:

1) The second option (direct read-write access) presumably breaks encapsulation
   so is unsafe.

2) The second and third options are obscure, as Nick said. It appears possible 
   for assignment to have different meanings in the same context. 

   If so, I think it would be confusing compared with Eiffel's

   c.set_radius (value)      -- for clients, and
   radius := value           -- for suppliers.

3) It's more complex than Eiffel's minimalist approach.


Roger Browne would probably have some valuable insight on this..


Don.                     (Reverse to reply)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             au.com.csa.syd@donh