On Nov 5, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Jesse Luehrs wrote:
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.
Agreed, overwrite is bad, but adding too is okay IMO.
