On 11/30/16, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> what about <autoaccessor>?
>> I'd rather to have a way to identify non-human made code, whether
>> transient
>> or permanent.
>
> The thing is, a human *did* made it by selecting that option off the
> menu.
+1
>
> This type of tag should be for code that is generated unbeknownst to
> the developer, *and* which may be regenerated in the future.
+1

>> yeah, but its IMHO more appropriate to have "proper" metadata.
>> I actually intended to make a new icon marker for those methods :)
>
> Are you saying you want to identify *plain* getter/setter
> methods with an icon in the methods list?  That way, as a developer,
> if I'm editing another method in the same class, then I could see that
> icon and, without having to select it, know that it is a simple
> accessor and not something more complex like lazily initialized.
> Sounds pretty good, at first..

Yes

> however this should probably be done
> by analyzing the bytecodes, not by a tag, because there will be
> hundreds of simple accessors which would not have it, and a few which
> did but were not simple because the developer didn't remove the tag.
> It seems like it would be hard to come to rely on something so
> inaccurate.
>
>

--Hannes