Re: Syntatic sugar and identifier permissivity

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> writes:

> If the latter is the case, then I can't really add much more to the
> thread, because GOOPS would not be something I planned on actively
> contributing too and using then.  It is indeed your code to write, and
> not mine, but I can't help but wonder why you are endeavoring to so
> completely gut the model that GOOPS was supposedly built upon and
> replace it with a cheap copy of other, lamer OO systems.

Even if I find Jost's ideas interesting (haven't had time to look
carefully at them yet, though), I think it is important to point out
that it is *his* ideas, and not necessarily the future policy of
GOOPS.

I guarantee that GOOPS will in no way become lamer, on the contrary.

Also, when speaking about removing names, it will 1. be done in a way
that the power of the MOP isn't diminished, and, 2. names will still
be used for debugging and printing.