Denys Duchier wrote:
> All this to bring home the point that there is NO SUCH THING AS THE
> NAME OF A CLASS; therefore it cannot be subject to introspection.
Introspection is for humans not for computers, so if a programmer wants to
refer to a class name is why he or she wants to have access to the structure
indentified by the name.
Let me cite Martin Fowler about that:
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand.
Good programmers write code that humans can understand"
> declare fun {NewClass} class $ end end {Show {NewClass}}
create an unnamed class on the fly could be considered a tricky part of the
language.
> I sympathize with the inclination to add means of introspection to
> ObjectSupport since we can regain security through the use of module
> managers ...
So why not to document a standard approach to the exetension or give any
suggestions about the argument ?
Cheers,
Adriano
-----
Adriano Volpones
Ars Computandi s.c.r.l.
via G.Donizetti, 20
24040 Canonica D'Adda - BERGAMO - ITALY
cell. +39 347 8344988
adriano.volpones@arscomputandi.com http://www.arscomputandi.com
-
Please send submissions to users@mozart-oz.org
and administriva mail to users-request@mozart-oz.org.
The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.
Please send bug reports to bugs@mozart-oz.org.