Re: Re: OOBit

[Tomas Guisasola Gorham <tomas@...>]

	Hi Gunnar

> > that seems to be, for the OO paradigm as the "goto" was for the
> > structured programing. So, as in PASCAL and C the goto still exists,
> > the classical way should continue to address this kind of requirement
> > - but, like the goto - should be used with caution.
>
> well, for one, lua is not an OO language. And I would not want it to become one. Neither do, from what I gather, the authors. And, as Javier mentioned, these dotty thingy discussions die down rather quickly, so I don't really see a strong interest for this in the lua community either.
>
> So I don't think your proposal is going to make it into the main lua codebase, and as far as I am concerned, that is a good thing. Nonetheless, make it a lua power patch and put it on the wiki next to the other dotty things, and it will probably find its users.
	I would say exactly that!  I like the fact that we are not tied
to objects in Lua.  We can write OO-like code but we are not forced to.

> > > 'f' and 'b' respectively. I expect b:baz() to call Bar's baz on b. But
> > > if I used f.baz(b) instead, I'm actually calling Foo's baz on b.
> >
> > I thought that was a feature ;)
>
> absolutely.
	As Steve and Javier mentioned earlier, I also think that is a
feature :-)

	Regards,
		Tomás