On Sep 16, 11:12 am, Matt Revelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich,
>
> Should I send in a CA and add ancestry verification and error handling
> or is this an unacceptable change?
>
I'm amenable to the idea, but I haven't looked at the specifics,
holding off on changes pre-release. Please do send in a CA if you
intend to submit patches. I wonder why specifying the ancestor class
should be necessary, isn't it just a matter of finding the field in
the hierarchy?
Thanks,
Rich
>
> On Sep 15, 12:22 am, Matt Revelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I modifed clojure/genclass to support adding exposer methods for
> > protected fields in classes higher up the hierarchy than the
> > superclass. Interfaces should also be supported too.
>
> > The patch can be found
> > here:http://clojure.googlegroups.com/web/genclass_exposers.diff
>
> > An example with the new syntax:
>
> > (gen-and-load-class 'motive.visual.TestSimpleGame
> > :extends com.jme.app.SimpleGame
> > :exposes '{[com.jme.app.BaseSimpleGame rootNode]
> > {:get getRootNode :set setRootNode}})
>
> > The original exposes format is supported too, which defaults to the
> > superclass. There's currently no check done to verify that the class/
> > interface specified as the home of the field is a part of the
> > hierarchy of the new class. I'll likely add that and clean things up
> > a bit after I get some sleep and feedback.
>
> > -Matt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
