On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:16:50PM -0500, Stevan Little wrote: >> I'm not entirely convinced here - at the very least, accessor names >> shouldn't be allowed to be overridden, since doing so doesn't actually >> make sense... the class would still be inheriting the superclass's >> accessors. This should still be an error, I think. I can't think of a >> reason why trigger would need to be excluded though. > > Well what if you want to add a writer to a read-only attr? Variations on > that, etc etc etc.
Hmmm, maybe we need a more intelligent check then. I do think that overwriting an existing accessor like this shouldn't be allowed... it implies functionality that really isn't possible. -doy
