Hi –
···
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, mgarriss wrote:
dblack@superlink.net wrote:
This is what I was groping at in saying earlier that there’s no
separate category of ‘attribute’ at the language level; it’s woven
from the same cloth, so to speak, as all the code around it, but
happens to fulfill a kind of attribute-like function. Or is that too
mushy a way of looking at it?I don’t think it’s ‘too mushy.’ One could argue that Ruby’s flexibility
in moving between the method and attribute concept is a feature and only
causes confusion when one is coming from a background where the
distinction is forced.
Just to clarify: I was questioning the mushiness of my description, not
Ruby’s behavior. I think this aspect of the design of Ruby is very
strong and clear and non-mushy ![]()
David
–
David Alan Black
home: dblack@superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav