I think the connection is commonly expected so that possibility should be acknowledge but also emphasized as not being required. Would you concern about implying some implicit maintenance of state be alleviated if [[Getter]] said "called to produce" rather than "called to return"?
In general, I think the descriptive text in these tables need to be considered as informative rather than normative. The normative definitions of the getters and setters is provided by the algorithms of the specifications. Overall, I don't this document (and its predecessors) does a very good job at clearly distinguishing the informative from the normative. Allen >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Michaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:36 AM >To: Allen Wirfs-Brock >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Kona [[Getter]] and [[Setter]] descriptions > >On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> [[Getter]] A zero-argument function that is called to return the >property value each time the property read. >> >> [[Setter]] A one-argument function that is called with the assigned >value each time the property is assigned. The effect of a property's >[[Setter]] function may but it not required to have an effect on the >value returned by subsequent calls to the property's [[Getter]] >function. > >These descriptions are going back towards the idea of "state" and a >connection between getting and setting. I don't think that is >necessary even though that is the motivation for their existence. >Getting and setting are two totally disjoint operations unless a >particular object is implemented so they are connected. > >Peter _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
