> Is this the old chestnut about direct access versus accessors from a
> software engineering standpoint or is it a purely technical
> discussion?
For me more a technical discussion to see how we could reuse more methods
and have more late bound object structure access.
Now the story about encapsulation in Smalltalk is mainly a convention (I do not
use message
>
> If it's the first, I kind of agree with Igor that *always* using
> selectors isn't great in Smalltalk, because accessors vs. ivars is the
> only mechanism we have to decide whether something is private or
> public.
>
> As soon as you make an API public, then you get all kinds of
> assumptions to fight with the next time you want to change it.
Yes. This is why I have a hate/love affair with the unification of state and
methods
Ideally I would love to have:
late bound state = unification
+ protected/public methods (but I could not find a nice model yet....)
You can read encapsulation in dynamic language as a reflexion
on the topic
> If it's the second discussion, please accept my apologies for the
> interruption :-)
you are welcome.
>
> Have a good Christmas,
> Steve
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Stéphane Ducasse
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi guys
>>>>
>>>> Ideally I would love to be able to use accessors as the abstraction layer
>>>> that they can bring us:
>>>> I mean the fact that we could avoid to have offset based bytecode means
>>>> that we could reuse a lot more
>>>> the methods (in special case - mixins and others).
>>>
>>> It's simply a bad idea.
>>
>> Be scientific, bring real arguments on the table else this is not fun and I
>> can just not reply to your email or have other preconceived statements.
>>
>
