In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:16:49 -0500 David Abrahams
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a
reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction, in
that it deals with methods and instance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Harris) writes:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:19:27 -0500 David Abrahams
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As I understand it, reflection means the ability to
discern the structure of language constructs.
In some languages it is not just reading.
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Harris) writes:
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.44.0212161022130.11243-10@lynx
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[Various reflection library links]
This is interesting, but to me it mostly
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.44.0212161022130.11243-10@lynx
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[Various reflection library links]
This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a
reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:37:00PM +, Dave Harris wrote:
This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a
reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction, in that it
deals with methods and instance variables rather than fields.
I also don't trust an
