[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Query on stacktrace management logic
From: |
Jeroen Frijters |
Subject: |
RE: Query on stacktrace management logic |
Date: |
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:17:45 +0100 |
Patrik Reali wrote:
> --On Freitag, 5. März 2004 08:13 +1000 David Holmes
> <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > As previously mentioned I think VMClass would be better defined as a
> > helper with static methods rather than a shadow object
> attached to each
> > Class instance.
>
> >From my own experience, I can only agree with this...
>
> (not much to say, but I really wanted to say it)
Since I seem to be the only one that actually wants a VMClass instance, maybe
we can agree on a slightly different interface. How about keep a reference to a
VMClass instance in Class, but not calling any instance methods on VMClass, but
using static methods instead (always passing the Class reference along).
Does that make sense?
Regards,
Jeroen
- RE: Query on stacktrace management logic, (continued)
RE: Query on stacktrace management logic, Robert Lougher, 2004/03/07
RE: Query on stacktrace management logic, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/03/10
RE: Query on stacktrace management logic,
Jeroen Frijters <=
RE: Query on stacktrace management logic, Jeroen Frijters, 2004/03/12