From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,8ff80a74f45b5cd3 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ff80a74f45b5cd3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Visibility and access to "public" attributes Date: 1997/09/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270071195 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: skule.ecf Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <01bcb787$eeb5a180$7e80400a@gavinspc> <34101640.8CF27E0@calfp.co.uk> Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34101640.8CF27E0@calfp.co.uk>, Nick Leaton wrote: > >I did a quick bit of analysis on some Eiffel software. > >193 set_attribute features in 1085 classes, consisting of 84,000 lines >of code. > >This is a very low figure compared to the number of attributes. I think >the explaination lies with class invariants. And if this were merely syntactic sugar, then it would seem unnecessary. However, the ability to change the semantics if the ":=" operator in existing code is a powerful one, comparable to the ability to change what was an attribute access into a function call. If this were available, perhaps it would be used more often than the "set_attribute" functions currently are? -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca