chromatic wrote:
The only time I've ever used properties in PIR was to mark an object
initializer, but we have better ways to handle that now too. I don't object
to having them, but I do think we ought to have at least one good use case to
help decide what they need to do and how to do them.
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 17:04, Allison Randal wrote:
> Will this not be alleviated by the new variable-sized PMCs you're
> prototyping? Anyway, I can't see that allocating storage for a single
> reference to another data structure is going to break the bank.
Seems like you'd always pay for
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> Properties are never inherited, they belong to just that one PMC.
Well, yeah. That's what they're designed to do. But agreed that for the
sake of clarity attributes and properties should keep two separate names.
> Therefore a
> much more efficient implementation of c
Hi @all,
[ shortened: ]
Recommendation: Deprecate property support in PMCs.
Allison: Would it help if we call them "static attributes" and "dynamic
attributes"?
No. Attributes and properties are almost orthogonal concepts.
Properties are per PMC (or object, as that's a PMC too)
