Re: RES: Standard Object Reflection (was Re: OOP in daydream...)

[PA <petite.abeille@...>]

On Jan 19, 2005, at 18:37, André de Leiradella wrote:

> . Multiple constructors can be defined

Why have "constructors" in the first place? What about a class methods 
instead? E.g. anInstance = MyObject:class:new() or such.

> Having super_of returning an iterator gives the programmer the choice 
> of
> having multiple inheritance or not, I do have in my class system to
> mimic Java's interfaces.

What about forgetting about multiple inheritance all together and 
instead just allow for "behaviors" to be moved around (something along 
the lines of AOP)? So you could say something like: 
MyObject:class:addImplementation( anotherClass )?

You could as well support the equivalent of Objective-C categories by 
providing a function to adds methods to any classes as well: e.g. 
MyObject:class:addMethod( aMethod ).

> . Methods must be called with ':'

Fine.

> . Properties must be accessed with '.'

What about forgetting about properties altogether? After all, ivars are 
implementation details. There is no needs to expose them one way or 
another.

> Is there another way of doing it? Seriously, maybe all objects should 
> be
> opaque, and getter/setter methods provided.

I like that better.

>  But this will increase typing.

Then everything would be a method:

- Smalltalk: everything is an object.
- Objective-Lua: everything is a method.

> . The syntax to call constructors

What about no constructor in the first place?

> . The syntax to call inherited methods

What about something like: anInstance:super:doIt()?

> . The repeated typing of 'self'

'self' is good. It should be a method as well. After all, OOP is about 
passing message around. There should always be an explicit 
target/action pair.

Cheers

--
PA
http://alt.textdrive.com/