From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-12-06T02:04:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Attempted roadmap of future instance variables....

On Friday 05 December 2003 05:40 pm, Christoph wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> ...
>
> > I rather agree with you on disliking the @_ form, but perhaps
> > for different reasons. In my module Transaction::Simple, I
> > have named most of the variables in the pattern @__foo__
> > (e.g., @__checkpoint__) so as to reduce the chance of name
> > collision. I'm not sure that I want magic behaviour because
> > of my choice to do this.
>
> The whole point of class local variables is to completely
> eliminate the possibility of name collision under subclassing.

Wouldn't it be better just to have instance vars (@foo) local to the class. 
Then subclasses and superclasses (and reportedly singletons too) would have 
to go through accessor methods? Just seems like a simpler and more elegant 
solution. Or is there a problem with this that I'm not seeing (besides "back 
breaking" compatability)?

T.