Re: addJavaBeanMethods

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:12 +0100, Martin Odersky wrote:
> I thought the set/get methods would simply forward to Scala's native 
> setter and getter? In that case what difference does it make which 
> method is called?

Certainly. I did it like that because (1) that was the easiest to
implement, just name translation, and (2) if we have true-and-through
attribute support what difference would the name of the actual method
being called make? The frontend will know the methods by the names from
the symbol table it reads from the classfile, while the backend will
translate names if necessary.

Anyway, I'm not religious about that. I hacked the backend because
that's what I'm most familliar with. If the Beans-style getter/setter
are additional forwarders that be in the tree so it is visible via the
-print option. Also, I think it's easier to generate the tree for the
forwarders than to emit additional method definitions/bytecode by hand
in the backend. I'll try to implement proper attribute support before
anyone can abuse this new feature. Otherwise, anyone is free to refine
it in the way that seems most appropriate.

Nikolay