David Brown wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 09:15:05AM -0700, Darren New wrote:
I'm just not sure how you could (for example) represent your code-base
and class heirarchy as normal objects and *not* be able to introspect it.
Easy, don't allow access to the classes and methods used to represent that.
Then they wouldn't be objects, IMO. If you can't send them a message,
what makes them an "object" from the programmer's point of view? I could
wave my hands and say "stack frames in C++ are objects, but you just
can't access them." It would look the same from the programmer's POV.
Any time there is more than one implementation of a language, it is
important for reflection to be standardized, otherwise it might as well not
be visible.
That's a different question.
CLR is also reflective, although generally the source is no longer around
in a running system. This is used for things like remote calls where
the system uses reflection to generate new code to marshal and unmarshal
data.
Yep. Not sure what your point is, but OK. :-) That's because the source
code isn't an object?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
