This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Philosophy and object systems (was Re: goops/guile doc)
Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> writes:
> Lalo Martins <lalo@webcom.com> writes:
>
> > Hmm no, it has to do with the original concept of classes
> > ``knowing how to perform operations themselves''. Has to do
> > more with philosophy and terminology than technical matters.
> > It's what I mean when I say ``tell the image to render on this
> > surface'' rather than ``render this image on this surface''.
>
> You might wanna check out:
>
> http://www.cyberdyne-object-sys.com/oofaq/oo-faq-S-1.19.html#S-1.19
This is an awful explanation and quite false, for example:
"Lack of encapsulation implies all arguments can be accessed by a
multi-method (although packages can be used to restrict access, as in
CLOS)."
The second part of the sentence is wrong. Once you have a reference
to an object, you can change its internals. The package system
can't help you in this case.
> implement a message passing style, but are not strictly limited to
> dispatching on one argument.
This are two pair of shoes: new string()and new string("bla")
call two different constructors.
> ObjC
Apples WO!? :)
> Fuckin'A man, "Entity Beans".
Hihi. Better than "BluePlastic in a box" with an entry price above
60.000 DM, isn't it?
Jost