transfire at gmail.com
Tue Apr 4 13:11:27 EDT 2006
On 4/3/06, Bryan Soto <bryan.a.soto at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was just a joke. :) I was just trying to imagine what certain
> denizens of the mailing list would have had to say about that
> suggestion. ;)
:-) I'm sure a lot of wonderful things if *I* brough it up ;-)
> Seriously though, in the context of this thread, you'd still have the
> original problem of how do you access them with a name that's not
> properties. Besides, if we go that route, I'd prefer we just annotate.
Well, certainly a fair way to do it, albiet it doubles line count.
> Hmm... That's a thought. Why not just store the properties as
> annotations? The prop_* methods and property could just be interfaces
> to the annotation system. I wonder if that would work...
It does actually. Except it also creates the attribute (Seems kind of
a waste not to since the information is there), and of course it does
that enchanting thing.
More information about the Nitro-general