[bitc-dev] Are type classes just abstract, generic classes?

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach at centrum.cz> wrote:
> Because if you manually write accessors you can include some magic in
> them or write accessors for non-existent fields to compute/translate
> them from existing fields. Once you define that something is a field
> rather than a method you lose all of this.

Not necessarily. Depends on how the compiler implements fields. In
particular, if the compiler automatically rewrites fields to
attributes, you haven't lost anything.

OTOH, if you didn't *need* any magic, why add the overhead?