No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: [Xotcl] TIP #257: Object Orientation for Tcl
From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:21:54 +0300
On 27 Sep 2005, at 03:05, Will Duquette wrote:
>
> It's really an aesthetic issue rather than a technical
> issue; I find many OO APIs to be terribly cluttered (Java,
> I'm looking at *you*) such that it becomes hard to tell
> which methods are important amid all of the ones which
> are only occasionally of interest.
I think this is a worthy sentiment and one I would subscribe to.
[define] is definitely not a bad solution at all. It feels like a
slot-based system. The aesthetics is why I'd prefer having
constructors and destructors as real methods. Then they become really
simple to describe. No specials required. Also, a Neil pointed out in
his own notes, there are reasons why one would want to have
assertions with destructors (and why not constructors too).
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:21:54 +0300
On 27 Sep 2005, at 03:05, Will Duquette wrote:
>
> It's really an aesthetic issue rather than a technical
> issue; I find many OO APIs to be terribly cluttered (Java,
> I'm looking at *you*) such that it becomes hard to tell
> which methods are important amid all of the ones which
> are only occasionally of interest.
I think this is a worthy sentiment and one I would subscribe to.
[define] is definitely not a bad solution at all. It feels like a
slot-based system. The aesthetics is why I'd prefer having
constructors and destructors as real methods. Then they become really
simple to describe. No specials required. Also, a Neil pointed out in
his own notes, there are reasons why one would want to have
assertions with destructors (and why not constructors too).
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/