Re: RES: Cryptic OOP syntax

[Klaus Ripke <paul-lua@...>]

Dear André

I guess it has become pretty much clear that for your users,
you need
- some form of OO-style programming facilities
- with a not-so tedious syntax
- supporting encapsulation ...
- ... but with a backdoor called "protected"
and we also saw that it can be done one way or the other.

Would you care to restate what would be your user's minimal requirements?

Is writing "B extends A" instead of some B = class(A,...) important?
Writing "new B" instead of B.new?
Having self.name = name in one method,
but elsewhere name magically refer to self.name?
(would this really make life easier for your users?
or would you expect "parameter hides member name"
compiler warnings?)