No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: [Xotcl] Question on [eval] method
From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:02:12 +0300 (EEST)
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Uwe Zdun wrote:
> I'm not pretty sure, what you want to reach here. The "eval" method provided
> by XOTcl does nothing
> else then a Tcl eval in the context of the object's namespace. This is not
> meant for evaluating
> methods, though it accidently works for local methods (procs), because they
> are defined
> in the same namespace.
OK, thanks. This is the information I was after. Ie. I should not assume
that, though it might be kind of cool if there was a way to do what I was
thinking.
> In the example below, I would define the " commands"
> such as 'format', 'short', 'object'
> as objects. Then you can use Tcl's eval to send messages to these objects,
> and define the first argument
> as method or use "unknown".
Then I actually gain very little compared to doing it inside namespaces.
It would've helped for the methods to know their context and also for
variables to be used (my first version did all this work manually). I can
still get that with directly manipulating Tcl namespaces, I think, but
it's just a tad more awkward than what I thought I'd get with XOTcl
objects (because I also have to create structures and objects for my
parser -- using namespaces instead of XOTcl obs).
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:02:12 +0300 (EEST)
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Uwe Zdun wrote:
> I'm not pretty sure, what you want to reach here. The "eval" method provided
> by XOTcl does nothing
> else then a Tcl eval in the context of the object's namespace. This is not
> meant for evaluating
> methods, though it accidently works for local methods (procs), because they
> are defined
> in the same namespace.
OK, thanks. This is the information I was after. Ie. I should not assume
that, though it might be kind of cool if there was a way to do what I was
thinking.
> In the example below, I would define the " commands"
> such as 'format', 'short', 'object'
> as objects. Then you can use Tcl's eval to send messages to these objects,
> and define the first argument
> as method or use "unknown".
Then I actually gain very little compared to doing it inside namespaces.
It would've helped for the methods to know their context and also for
variables to be used (my first version did all this work manually). I can
still get that with directly manipulating Tcl namespaces, I think, but
it's just a tad more awkward than what I thought I'd get with XOTcl
objects (because I also have to create structures and objects for my
parser -- using namespaces instead of XOTcl obs).
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/