On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

> Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> 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