This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: closures for GOOPS privates


Jost Boekemeier <jostobfe@calvados.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> writes:

> Also I don't understand why you think that piano and bike are two
> "conflicting classes".  In a special design it may be a good idea to
> combine them to a single class.  The only problem is that they both
> have a slot "pedal" and that you must rename either bike's pedal or
> piano's pedal to a new name.  The module can't handle this, that's
> the class' job.

This argument is not at all clear. If the two classes are supposed to
operate the same concept, then merging slots for the concept is
okay. If the designer insisted on using the same name for the two
disparate concepts (that need extra dataslot and special treatment in
methods), it's bad OOA.

I'd love to see an example that isn't either. But such a thing, IMHO,
would be sufficiently rare that it'd be okay to require the programmer
to use separate modules - just to make sure that the need for
namespace separation is made explicit.

-- 
How to eff the ineffable?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]