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