AW: [Xotcl] destroy invoked by object move?

[Scott Gargash]

xotcl-bounces at alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/20/2006 02:26:26 PM:

>
> On 20 Mar 2006, at 18:41, Scott Gargash wrote:
>
> > xotcl-bounces at alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/20/2006 07:21:27 AM:
> >
> > There's some semantic relationship between the two accessors, so it
> > would be nice to have some overlap in their names.  How about "my
> > varname" and "my methodname"?
> How about, to make it totally obvious, "my varNamespace" and "my
> methodNamespace"? Readability and clarity is generally more important
> in programming than cutting a few keystrokes off and at least that
> would be easy for anyone reading the code to decipher.

I agree with you about clarity vs. typing, but I'm still reluctant to entrench namespace.  The fact
that it's in a namespace is implementation, and part of the utility of this is to encapsulate that
implementation.  What's really happening is you're getting a valid external reference to a variable
or method.

Hmm... "my &var" and "my &method"?   Or is it too C++?  "my varref" and "my methodref"?

      Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://alice.wu-wien.ac.at/pipermail/xotcl/attachments/20060320/bf268eda/attachment.html