On Jun 16, 2006, at 17:29, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Wouldn't it be an idea to have a property 'is_read_only' or something
like that? Then, when attempting to do a write action on a r/o PMC, an
exception is thrown. It would seem to me that this is a typical case
for using a property.
A "Parrot
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:27:06AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Friday 16 June 2006 08:29, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
:
: > Wouldn't it be an idea to have a property 'is_read_only' or something
: > like that? Then, when attempting to do a write action on a r/o PMC, an
: > exception is thrown. It would
On Friday 16 June 2006 08:29, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> Wouldn't it be an idea to have a property 'is_read_only' or something
> like that? Then, when attempting to do a write action on a r/o PMC, an
> exception is thrown. It would seem to me that this is a typical case for
> using a property.
>
> Th
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Recently on IRC:
@woggle> leo: So, for read-only PMC variants, I'm presuming that it's okay
to have the read-only
variants have their own type number and type name (like was
done for ConstSArray)...
My 2 c:
A distinct type number would cause e.g. dif
Recently on IRC:
@woggle> leo: So, for read-only PMC variants, I'm presuming that it's okay
to have the read-only
variants have their own type number and type name (like was
done for ConstSArray)...
My 2 c:
A distinct type number would cause e.g. different MMD behavior and I
