 |
 |
> Did every one of your abstractions need to be represented by > procedures? No, very few. That's why I could get away with not using them. But, if in the future the implementation changes, I will be back to the old situation of scanning through the code looking for all references to the data. > > The point of my message <[log in to unmask]> > was that you don't need to write the accessors until you decide that > the abstractions can't be represented as components, i.e., not until > you need to represent them with the equivalent of C# get/put functions/ > updaters. Until then, you don't need the one-liners that bulk up the > code, increasing development and maintenance costs, and slowing things > down. To achieve this, uniform syntax of reference is crucial. > Updaters > on their own aren't useful unless they have the same syntax of > reference > as would the abstractions they implement if they were represented as > data > objects. I fully agree. I like the idea of these updaters. Unfortunately they are not available in fortran, and I have to make do with hand written accessors for all data, if I want to garner the benefits of indirection between data and data access. Maybe updaters are something for F2013 ;-) Drew ======================================== Dr. Drew McCormack (Kmr. R153) Afd. Theoretische Chemie Faculteit Exacte Wetenschappen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1083 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands Email [log in to unmask] Telephone +31 20 44 47623 Mobile +31 6 483 21307 Fax +31 20 44 47629