[Nitro] help with og!

zimba-tm zimba.tm at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 07:48:43 EST 2005


The disadvantage I see to use attr, is that you can't specify the data
types. It would then be necessary to describe it somewhere else, like
in the constructor. Altrough, if a blank object can't be instanciated
without default parameters, then this cannot be done also.

Any other ideas on this ?

On 28/11/05, George Moschovitis <george.moschovitis at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still thinking if we should use attr instead of prop.
>
> -g.
>
>
> On 11/27/05, zimba-tm <zimba.tm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And why can't we use attr ?
> >
> > On 25/11/05, TRANS <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > doesn't this break the idea that the classes are implementation independent ?
> > >
> > > But you still have to use the #property method anyway, so no matter
> > > how you slice it, it's implementation dependent.
> > >
> > > T.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Nitro-general mailing list
> > > Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >   zimba
> >
> > http://zimba.oree.ch
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nitro-general mailing list
> > Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.gmosx.com
> http://www.navel.gr
> http://www.nitrohq.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
>


--
Cheers,
  zimba

http://zimba.oree.ch




More information about the Nitro-general mailing list