[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Re: OOBit
- From: Tomas Guisasola Gorham <tomas@...>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:51:27 -0300 (BRT)
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 ;)
As Steve and Javier mentioned earlier, I also think that is a