Re: Smart variables, dumb variables

[tomas]

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''