On 06/04/2008, at 1:38 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Sure,
developers will be able to explicitly mark areas in their code which
they deem appropriate for another developer to change, but that
strikes me as a bit of a fantasy land.
The fantasy here would be that JS has been kept down on the same-
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Peter Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want mutability, you can define methods as vars in the first place.
class Foo {
// can be modified on a per-instance basis
public var f : function (a:T):S = function (a:T):S {
return null;
}
}
A
On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 13:07 -0700, Brendan Eich wrote:
You're doing it again: wholesale locking down is false as a general
statement, and almost entirely false broken down into particulars.
You're right, wholesale locking down is false. However, it is the
migration path for developers who
On 04/04/2008, at 1:35 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
EIBTI!
Perhaps not the best reference given the topic, given that Python
makes class overriding and resurrection of overridden classes
possible with their __builtin__ module.
I'm actually quite surprised to hear that there are so many on this
On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Nathan de Vries wrote:
On 04/04/2008, at 1:35 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
EIBTI!
Perhaps not the best reference given the topic, given that Python
makes class overriding and resurrection of overridden classes
possible with their __builtin__ module.
Good point.
the moment, but I assume you can't do replace a method on a user class
with
another ad-hoc function.
Absolutely not with fixtures,
I was thinking about this, is there any reason why you can't replace a
class's method with another method or install a method on an instance object
that
Replacing a method effectively changes the type, even if the signature
is the same. If some code creates an instance of a class using new
it should be able to rely on it being that type, and make assumptions
about how that object will behave. (This is not a matter of breaking
polymorphism because
of
integrity is the important part.)
--lars
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Hall
Sent: 3. april 2008 09:58
To: Kris Zyp
Cc: es4-discuss Discuss
Subject: Re: Class method addition and replacement (was Re:
AOP Compatibility
On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
the moment, but I assume you can't do replace a method on a user
class
with
another ad-hoc function.
Absolutely not with fixtures,
I was thinking about this, is there any reason why you can't replace a
class's method with another method or
addition and replacement (was Re:
AOP Compatibility)
Just to echo Peter here, changing a method violates
integrity in the
worst way. If I say new Cls I *know* that the object I get is of
type Cls, and if I know the implementation of that class I
know what a
call to a method
10 matches
Mail list logo
