On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Tobias Pape 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…

Why would that be any good?
If it is a good idea, then what are instance variables good for?

Levente


>
>
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>>