On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:
Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:Again, I am not suggesting adding functional update [...]Yet you are making a compelling case for it. What's less clear to me is why you seem to insist this should be done through the reflection API (and thus be limited to non-opaque record types, among other limitations)---after all, accessors, mutators, and constructors aren't either.
Sorry, no, I am not insisting, and you are right. I was just focussing on the first way it occurred to me.
Cheers Andre