Would forcing them to also define an assigner, as a validity
constraint, be sufficient?
--- In
eiffel_software@..., Eric Bezault <ericb@...> wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Stapf [ES] wrote:
> >> I want to replace this attribute c in a subclass with a method:
> >
> > The simple answer is that it is not allowed by the language
definition. This
> > is still open to discussion at the ECMA committee but currently
the feeling
> > is that it might make things slower for incremental compiler and
will slow
> > down dynamic access to such entities. However they were not strong
feeling
> > about it. Since this restriction already existed in the past and all
> > existing compilers have kept this restriction the consensus was to
leave
> > things as they are.
>
> Allowing redefinition of attributes to routines also means that
> the compiler will have to reject routines inherited from A that
> use `c' as the target of an assignment, and hence force the user
> to redefine these routines in B.
>
> If ECMA allows this kind of redefinition of attributes to routines,
> it will have to be very careful and identify all Eiffel constructs
> where the rules and behaviors are different when the entity is an
> attribute or a routine, as shown above for assignments.
>
> --
> Eric Bezault
> mailto:ericb@...
>
http://www.gobosoft.com>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eiffel_software/<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eiffel_software/join (Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:
eiffel_software-digest@...
mailto:
eiffel_software-fullfeatured@...
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
eiffel_software-unsubscribe@...
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
