> From: "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at gate.net>
>
> On the other hand, I don't think any amount of evangelizing on the  
> virtues of "always using accessors" will make a hog's breath of
> difference until the "optimization" and "automation" is actually
> accomplished by the compiler and the creation of accessors is
> automated.  People simply won't choose a textually longer, more
> difficult approach that runs almost twice as slowly over a more
> textually straightforward process that requires no human overhead for  
> creating all those accessors.

That was the essence of my proposal:  (a) let the most  
straightforward syntax mean message passing, (b) let that be  
optimized away by the compiler and (c) allow it to work without the  
(c.I) hassle or (c.II) non-privacy of *having* to define  
accessor-methods (that doesn't mean that you can't define accessors).

Marcel