At 10:58 AM +0200 10/5/02, Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:42:27PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > - An attribute and a method are _not_ typically implemented in the same
>> manner. Treating the two as interchangeable might imply runtime
>> overhead.
>
>Bah! I bet the intern
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:42:27PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> [Draft Proposal: Symmetry between Attributes and Accessors]
>
> It is proposed that class attributes may be treated as functionally
> equivalent to an identically named accessor method. In this manner, it
&g
(Disclaimer: My purpose in proposing this is not to recommend it, but
to document whether the idea should be endorsed, or shot down, and any
proposed canonical syntax. Note that the later implications of these
choices are quite substantial. Please discuss!)
[Draft Proposal: Symmetry between
