Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)

From
Karl Waclawek <>
To
Seairth Jacobs <>, xml-dev <>
Date
2002-10-23T16:56:01Z
ID
<007901c27ab5$1144b560$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>
Thread
Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Seairth Jacobs" <>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <>
> >
> > At 2:58 PM +0100 10/23/02, Alaric B. Snell wrote:
> >
> > >Ideally, of course, one would have a language where foo.bar = baz is just
> a
> > >shorthand for foo.setBar (baz) and foo.bar is short for foo.getBar (),
> like
> > >my beloved Dylan, since then you can declare fields public or public-read
> > >private-write as you see fit and still add behaviour later. Or remove the
> > >actual field storage altogether and replace it with a computation.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like Eiffel to me. :-)
> 
> And FoxPro.

And since this can be done in C++ too, the question now is:
Which languages (except C and Java) do *not* support the feature
described above (often called "properties")?

Karl