From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-19 17:50:46
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> brangdon_at_[hidden] (Dave Harris) writes:
>
> > In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212161022130.11243-100000_at_lynx>
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) (craigp_at_[hidden]) wrote:
> >> [Various reflection library links]
> >
> > This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a
> > reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction, in that
it
> > deals with methods and instance variables rather than fields.
>
> What's a "field"? In particular, please compare/contrast with
> "instance variable".
The fundamental question is what does (should) a reflection framework see,
the physical object (data members, member functions, even private) or the
logical object ("fields").