[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Smart variables, dumb variables
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: Smart variables, dumb variables |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:28:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.24i |
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:35:29PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
>
[...]
> Read-onlyness should be a property of a variable that can be detected
> by the compiler so we wouldn't want to bury it only in the setter, I'd
> say.
For some kind of static integrity checking? (the performance bit
is already taken care of, at least if we assume that writing to
a read-only variable doesn't happen very often ;)
How about a special setter then (e.g. NULL or 'read-only). If someone
changes this setter at run-time I guess they get what they deserve.
The idea would be to spare the precious bit just to say that there's
something special about the setter and to put more information
``down the pointer'', where there is more room (same for the getter).
-- tomas ``if it sounds fuzzy it's because I'm fuzzy myself''
- Smart variables, dumb variables, Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/13
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, tomas, 2002/08/14
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/14
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables,
tomas <=
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/14
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, rm, 2002/08/14
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/14
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, rm, 2002/08/15
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Lynn Winebarger, 2002/08/15
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, rm, 2002/08/15
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Rob Browning, 2002/08/15
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/15
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, rm, 2002/08/15
- Re: Smart variables, dumb variables, Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/15