Re: [Vala] private fields vs bodyless properties

[Yu Feng <rainwoodman gmail com>]

On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 06:57 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:05 AM, Hans Vercammen <hveso3 gmail com> wrote:
> > Now the construct keyword for properties in the class constructor
> > arguments is being deprecated, I started to adjust some things and
> > stumbled upon some implementation questions.
> >
> > While "private int foo { get; set; }" does not make much sense and
> > should better be optimized to "private int foo;", assignment of the
> > private field foo in the constructor with a constructor argument is not
> > possible at the moment, only property assignments are allowed. There
> > might be a good reason for this, but I could not find any reference, so
> > just a quick question here.
> 
> The reason for this is that the objects are gobjects and these are
> created by a g_object_new call [1]. That function can only set
> properties. So you need to have a property if you want to pass data to
> your constructor
> 
> Jaap
However the following code is perfectly fine;


MyObject * my_object_new(int my_value){
  MyObject * myobject = g_object_new(TYPE_MY_OBJECT, NULL);
  MyObjectPrivate * priv = MY_OBJECT_GET_PRIVATE(myobject);
  priv->my_value = my_value;
}
(I think I am also using this when writing c programs)

A .new method is nothing more than a static member of the class to
create an object. I don't think we should think of it as an constructor.

After all, the static _new member is kind of in the GType level, and
'constructors' is a different story in the GObject level.

Regards,

Yu
> [1] http://library.gnome.org/devel/gobject/unstable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#g-object-new
> _______________________________________________
> Vala-list mailing list
> Vala-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list