[squeak-dev] Object>>className

H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Fri Mar 24 08:39:48 UTC 2017


On 3/24/17, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 24.03.2017, at 01:17, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 23-03-2017, at 3:10 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would rather get rid of "create inst var accessors" altogether, then
>>> you would not have that problem.   :)
>>
>> If I could think of a way of getting away with it I’d make it completely
>> impossible to make methods with the same name as an ivar. All it does is
>> encourage the sort of scoundrels ( cads! bounders! mountebanks I tell
>> you!) that treat classes as Pascal records or C structs.
>> Didn’tortabealloweditellya.
>>
>
> I'd rather have the opposite direction.
> All instvars should be required to have accessors; I don't want see any code
> that accesses instvars directly _execpt_ accessors…
+1
>
>>
>> tim
>> --
>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>> Negligent (adj.), describes a condition in which you absentmindedly answer
>> the door in your nightgown.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list