Look like we have two antagonist paradigms: one for reusability (which 
is at the heart of OOP) and the other one to protect access to 
attributes (which is also at the heart of OOP).

Given the nature of Smalltalk, code reusability, I like to think the 1st 
paradigm is more important.

But beside that, there are no "rational" excuse to not use accessors 
instead of direct attribute access; otherwise why defining the 
accessors? For decoration?

Hilaire


Juan Vuletich a écrit :
> Hi Hilaire,
> Yes, refactoring Morphic code is something to be considered.
> But I'm not a believer of the so called "double encapsulation". If a 
> class has an accessor methods, it allows anyone to know (and enven 
> change!) the value of the instance variable. That is against 
> encapsulation. It is the object (via its class) who defines what it 
> makes public and what it keeps private. If a subclass needs to change 
> that, it's a good time for refactoring.
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hilaire Fernandes" 
> <hilaire at ext.cri74.org>
> To: "Squeak Devel" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:21 AM
> Subject: Evilness object oriented approach in Morph
> 
> 
>> I have realized that many of the Morph method does not use instance
>> variable accessor but direct access to the instance variable.
>> One may think this improve the efficiency of the method but in the other
>> hand its downgrade (or just break) the oriented object efficiency of
>> thus objets.
>> Is refactoring the code of the Moprh methods something to be considered?
>>
>> Hilaire
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 
>> 1/19/2006
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
ADD R0,R1,R2,LSL #2