Quite right. My implementation is actually different, though
conceptually like the model I demonstrated.
>When I was working on a general Grove interface I came to decide that
>it really should be a grove specific set of classes which build on
>some more primitive interfaces (such as node, property_value), and
>which impliment properties as methods.
Yes. Properties as methods is a much better idea. In my actual
implementation, I basically export a map interface that allows
properties to be set/get by name, and have various flavors of
property.