3 ms·
Strictly speaking, you can do it without that stuff, here are some snippets of a test i was doing in Borland C++ Builder 1 (from 1996, that is pre-C++98) a few
by badsectoracula 6y ago
Strictly speaking, you can do it without that stuff, here are some snippets of a test i was doing in Borland C++ Builder 1 (from 1996, that is pre-C++98) a few years ago [0] (not using any of BCB's C++ extensions) which end up with this [1] (it is a bunch of controls thrown in a form mainly to test stuff, but the interesting bit is the property editor at the right).
If you do not mind relying a bit too hard on the preprocessor you can also do it in plain C [2] (i mean, the C++ approach still relies on it a lot, but the C one goes all the way :-P).
A game engine (for a big published game, not my own stuff) i worked on at the past used this approach (the C++ one) heavily and i think it is also quite common in some frameworks.
Though personally outside of experimentation i just use Free Pascal which provides the functionality as a core feature of the language (and next version will allow attaching arbitrary attributes to properties, which addresses my "i'd like to have a description for this property for the editor without writing a GetPropertyDescription method" wish :-P).
[0] https://pastebin.com/eCYs1tv8 https://pastebin.com/eCYs1tv8
[1] https://i.imgur.com/Ry5114y.png https://i.imgur.com/Ry5114y.png
[2] https://pastebin.com/8udWrNcv https://pastebin.com/8udWrNcv
- pjmlp 6y agoAgreed, but that is why it has been an ongoing discussion at ISO, many devs are fed up with such approaches, because it is the kind of stuff that prevents C++ to have nice IDE tooling like Java and .NET.