__property oddity
-
This is interesting, I just created a new project and found this... This compiles...
namespace VNK {
using namespace System;
using namespace System::Drawing;public __gc class Foo
{
private:
Graphics *m_pGraphics;
Bitmap *m_pBitmap;public:
Foo();
~Foo();\_\_property Graphics\* get\_Graphics() { return m\_pGraphics; } \_\_property Bitmap\* get\_Bitmap() { return m\_pBitmap; }};
This does not...
namespace VNK {
using namespace System;
using namespace System::Drawing;public __gc class Foo
{
public:
Foo();
~Foo();\_\_property Graphics\* get\_Graphics() { return m\_pGraphics; } \_\_property Bitmap\* get\_Bitmap() { return m\_pBitmap; }private:
Graphics *m_pGraphics;
Bitmap *m_pBitmap;
};I would bet there is a bug report on this, or I am missing something very fundamental that came in on the heals of MC++.
I don't think it's a bug. To me it is looks quite obvious that the scope resolution should fail in the second case as it tries to resolve the token Graphics in the local scope and it turns out to be a property name where property name is not expected. Solve this using
using namespace System; using namespace System::Drawing; public \_\_gc class Foo { public: Foo(); ~Foo(); \_\_property Graphics\* get\_Graphics() { return m\_pGraphics; } \_\_property Bitmap\* get\_Bitmap() { return m\_pBitmap; } private: System::Drawing::Graphics \*m\_pGraphics; System::Drawing::Bitmap \*m\_pBitmap; };And for all the C# haters, C# compiler is much smarter in this regard.
-
That would explain why it worked on my machine then. Very strange... Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# A total abstainer is one who abstains from everything but abstention, and especially from inactivity in the affairs of others.
Tom Archer wrote: Very strange... It is indeed, before Christian tore me away from my research, I didn't see anything that would indicate variable declarations need to go at the top of the file. Unfortunately all the __property examples I've seen use the same one slightly modified:
__property int get_Size() { return 0; } __property void set_Size() { }X| Once I get my mind back in shape I'll take a further look :) James Simplicity Rules! -
I don't think it's a bug. To me it is looks quite obvious that the scope resolution should fail in the second case as it tries to resolve the token Graphics in the local scope and it turns out to be a property name where property name is not expected. Solve this using
using namespace System; using namespace System::Drawing; public \_\_gc class Foo { public: Foo(); ~Foo(); \_\_property Graphics\* get\_Graphics() { return m\_pGraphics; } \_\_property Bitmap\* get\_Bitmap() { return m\_pBitmap; } private: System::Drawing::Graphics \*m\_pGraphics; System::Drawing::Bitmap \*m\_pBitmap; };And for all the C# haters, C# compiler is much smarter in this regard.
Rama Krishna wrote: private: System::Drawing::Graphics *m_pGraphics; System::Drawing::Bitmap *m_pBitmap; :omg: :omg: Thats it, I quit! ;P James Simplicity Rules!
-
I don't think it's a bug. To me it is looks quite obvious that the scope resolution should fail in the second case as it tries to resolve the token Graphics in the local scope and it turns out to be a property name where property name is not expected. Solve this using
using namespace System; using namespace System::Drawing; public \_\_gc class Foo { public: Foo(); ~Foo(); \_\_property Graphics\* get\_Graphics() { return m\_pGraphics; } \_\_property Bitmap\* get\_Bitmap() { return m\_pBitmap; } private: System::Drawing::Graphics \*m\_pGraphics; System::Drawing::Bitmap \*m\_pBitmap; };And for all the C# haters, C# compiler is much smarter in this regard.
Actually, I think you may be correct, that’s what I get for looking at these things at 3:30 in the morning...