Re: Class Properties in Interfaces?

Robert Cummings wrote:

On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:04 +0200, John Carter -X (johncart - PolicyApp Ltd at Cisco) wrote:

I think there's been two responses to this query: 1. We can't have properties in interfaces because interfaces don't have properties. I would say this is tautological and doesn't add anything. 2. Why would you need to? Getters and setters work. So I suppose to answer my question for myself, there's no real technical reason for not having properties in interfaces, but getters and setters work just fine and no-one (including me) really misses them.

I have to agree. Enforcing existence of a property is just as much part of an interface as enforcing the existence of a method. Why go down the clutzy getter and setter method route when properties were meant to be accessed. Why should code be made slower? Methods are at least an order of magnitude slower than direct property access. Cheers, Rob.

I'm glad someone out there agrees with me. -- Jeremy Privett C.E.O. & C.S.A. Omega Vortex Corporation http://www.omegavortex.net Please note: This message has been sent with information that could be confidential and meant only for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and inform us of the error as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation.