I think that any good fix of morphic is really high on our  
consideration.
Thanks for your time!!!!


Stef
On 29 juil. 05, at 4:09, Eddie Cottongim wrote:


> Thanks to everyone who has given this consideration. In case people  
> want to try it and don't know what were talking about, here's a  
> changeset that switches to no-copy and includes a comment. Let us  
> know if you find any problems.
>
> Chris Muller wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I often use copy in default access methods. The motivation is  
>>> increaed robustness; it can be very risky to modify a collection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> While a read-only accessor may have its place, in *this* case,  
>> robustness is
>> decreased, not increased.  If you don't want to allow direct  
>> access to a
>> Collection, then what do you think about providing various  
>> enumerating / adding
>> / removing / finding api from the containing class?
>>
>> I generally disagree with having code that "cross-checks"  
>> potentially incorrect
>> code elsewhere.  Besides the aforementioned performance  
>> degradation, it can
>> inhibit learning because it allows misuse and then even increases
>> confusion/uncertainty about the necessity of it when you try to  
>> remedy it (just
>> like right now, we're all scratching our heads about this!).
>>
>>
>>
> I agree; there are lots of ways to screw up a Morph, copy or no  
> copy. Also, exporting the actual object reduces the need to make  
> lots of collection lookalike accessor methods to avoid a  
> performance penalty.
>
> Thanks,
> Eddie
>
>
> <NoCopySubmorphs-efc.2.cs.gz>
>
>
>