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>