[Edu-sig] Design Patents

[Arthur]

>I think use cases were described, and demonstrated, in which the property
>feature made sense, e.g. we wanted an attributes-based API into our
>triangle object, but sometimes the results were computed on the fly. 

And I notice that without the use of properties, that which is computed on
the fly is identified as such.  So that properties allow us to have an API
that which is unrevealing on this matter. I am not excited yet.

Yes, I think I understand. *With* properties we can change our mind after
our API is set in stone and nobody will notice or need to adjust.

So that properties and their use case encourage us to release less revealing
API's all the time, to cover ourselves in the event we set our API in stone
prematurely.

I don't like properties.

And certainly no more so from what I have learned from this attempt at
getting more clarity about them.

And like to think my naivety on this kind of matter is a purposeful naivety.

Art