• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:49:31 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1021-D8BE0296E68311D6B5470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <E184M1j-0002U4-00@c...> <p04330109b9dc70676534@[192.168.254.4]>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>
>
> At 2:58 PM +0100 10/23/02, Alaric B. Snell wrote:
>
> >Ideally, of course, one would have a language where foo.bar = baz is just
a
> >shorthand for foo.setBar (baz) and foo.bar is short for foo.getBar (),
like
> >my beloved Dylan, since then you can declare fields public or public-read
> >private-write as you see fit and still add behaviour later. Or remove the
> >actual field storage altogether and replace it with a computation.
> >
>
> Sounds like Eiffel to me. :-)

And FoxPro.

---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@s...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• References:
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The BrowserWars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Next by Date: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Next by thread: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread