scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] Saving calls to file-info

To: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] Saving calls to file-info
From: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue Jul 2 07:08:15 2002
Cc: scsh-hackers <scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> "Mike" == Michael Sperber <sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> 
>>>>> writes:
>>>>> "Mike" == Michael Sperber <sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
Martin> The manual contains the record type of file-info, everybody can see
Martin> what it contains.

Mike> Yes, and that neither good nor necessary.

Martin> Maybe. The point is that we can't change it.

Mike> Sure we can; it's mainly an artefact of the way the documentation is
Mike> written.  It's also Olin's colon notation that provides a strong, but
Mike> not definite hint that these things are record accessors.

I was refering to the fact that the structure of the file-info is
exposed already so there is nothing more to expose by overloading
however this would work.

Martin> The mentioned procedures extract information from the fields
Martin> of the record. Adding them as additional fields would
Martin> introduce redundancy.

Mike> As would providing that functionality via overloading.

Martin> No. The procedures work on the existing data, they do not introduce
Martin> new data in addition to existing fields.

Mike> Huh?  What procedures?  

The overloaded ones.

Mike> What "new data"?

I didn't dare to think that you would like to introduce faked record
accessors.

-- 
Martin


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>