RES: Still cryptic OOP syntax

[André de Leiradella <leiradella@...>]

lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br wrote:
> Hi, too,
> 
> AdL> Those who are against OOP, as I was once against packages, should
> AdL> take some time to think if the features they use are needed by
> AdL> other users.
> 
> Just to make it clear in advance: I am not opposed to OOP in Lua. I
> am just opposed to one fixed style of OOP for Lua. 

We're forced to do things somebody else's way all the time... Would you
like a select statement in Lua? I would. That coroutines could be told
to run for an specific amount of time and then be resumed later? I
would. Everybody's must have a list of things he/she would like to be
able to do in a different manner, with Lua and with anything else.

But should someone come up with metamethods that enable the creation of
*simple to use* class systems that would be great to me.

> 
> AdL> I think the saying "If you don't want to do something, just
> don't" 
> AdL> fits nicely here.
> 
> hehe, that's a nice example of turning someones argument against him
> ;-) But, on a more serious note: Roberto wrote that to justify
> leaving something out of the language. You use it to justify adding
> something to the language. The difference is, in the first case you
> end up with lua, the latter case may get you something like ada.   

Or Python, if the authors decide that Lua should be bundled with
hundreads of classes built-in. But just having the class system doesn't
mean you have to have pre-built classes, C++ doesn't have any.

Andre