From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-19 17:50:46
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> brangdon_at_[hidden] (Dave Harris) writes:
> > In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212161022130.11243-100000_at_lynx>
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) (craigp_at_[hidden]) wrote:
> >> [Various reflection library links]
> > This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a
> > reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction, in that
> > deals with methods and instance variables rather than fields.
> What's a "field"? In particular, please compare/contrast with
> "instance variable".
The fundamental question is what does (should) a reflection framework see,
the physical object (data members, member functions, even private) or the
logical object ("fields").
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk