[m-rev.] field syntax (was: smart recompilation)

[Fergus Henderson]

On 04-Jul-2001, Ralph Becket <rbeck at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> In the presence of user-definable access functions (q.v. C# properties
> etc.) I can no longer assume the classical point of view when looking
> at a piece of field update syntax.

I disagree -- you can and should assume that point of view.
Because if the code you're reading is not deliberately obfuscated,
then it will be right, at least to a first approximation.

It doesn't matter if the field is only a virtual field implemented via
get/set accessors rather than a real one, since the only time people
should use such virtual fields is when the distinction doesn't matter.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------