>> There is a problem with getters with the current C++ standard due to implicit conversion operators. They cause unwanted side effects.
Are you sure that is a problem with getters and not just a problem in general? Because, for example, c_string() is a getter that is also an explicit conversion, and it is better than any C++03 alternative.
Of course, I mean getters as in conversion operators, such as discussed in this thread. These conversion operators are a problem in general which is why we see member functions such as c_str() in the standard library.
Originally Posted by Adak
I am forced to agree with this. C++ offers many ways to achieve the same behavior. To be honest C# doesn't 'need' them either or at least I haven't found a 'need' for them. You could just as well create setters and getters in C#. But it is nice to be able to write this without any type of backing store needed:It just doesn't seem to be worth it.
I can say that syntax is 100% better than the equivalent in C++. Sorry C++ but you lose this one to C# hands down.Code:public bool Visible { get; private set; }
