> Emilio>"...you may wish no to be bound to the internal struture of your
> object within your very object itself. May be because your are not sure of
> the internal shape your object would have."
>
> Your desire is evidently a logical inconsistency.
>
> Worse, it's actually easier to find and change all references to an
instance
> variable in all the methods of a class inheritance hierarchy than it is to
> find and change all sends to self (and super) of a particular
message--which
> means that referencing the instance variable directly results in looser,
not
> tighter, binding.  Even better, if there's no method, then there can't be
> any external sends of the message, so that that case doesn't even
> need to be checked.
Nope, you get me wrong. Assuming the accessor is still relevant in the
concept you are trying to grasp with your class, you can change just the
implementation of that method (not an accessor any more), and forget about
that instance variable without finding and changing all references anywhere
but in that method.

Saludos

	Emilio

>
> --Alan
>
>
>
>