Need feedback on simple idea

Randal L. Schwartz merlyn at stonehenge.com
Fri Apr 11 14:25:38 UTC 2003


>>>>> "Stephane" == Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> writes:

Stephane> Did I say that we should change squeak?
Stephane> here is what I wrote:

Stephane> "I would like to know what you would think of the following change in
Stephane> Smalltalk.
Stephane> We are really in the mood to make some change in the compiler to play
Stephane> with the idea
Stephane> for our research."

Well, I'm apparently not the only one that reads a post like this to
the squeak-dev list as "we are thinking about changing the core squeak
in the following way..."

Maybe it loses something in the translation? {shrug}

For the record, I also would be opposed to changing core Squeak (which
equals Smalltalk for me) to do this.

I can recall and predict many times when the public interface (a
method name) should not map directly to a private storage design (an
instance variable).

In fact, I'll be so bold as to say that anyone who automatically
creates setters and getters for *every* instance variable is not
thinking in OO yet.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list