OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Object Oriented Programming

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Jan 04, 2007
• 1371 views

CChris wrote:
> Why?
> Please explain the issue.
> Please read my post on this, from yesterday.
I did. It was one of the more jargon-filled posts in this thread.

> Matt wrote a few posts about it this month as he was replying to Tapani. 
> Could you comment on his posted code examples,
I have no real problem with that, then again as Matt implied, it was not
really a great example. Personally I'd prefer multiple constructors to
be replaced with optional parameters, eg:

procedure new(object s1, integer s2=0, s3=0, s4=0)
  if sequence(s1) then s4=s1[4] s3=s1[3] s2=s1[2] s1=s1[1] end if
  ...
end procedure

so new({1,2,3,4}) and new(1,2,3,4) work the same and avoid any code duplication
whatsoever.
I agree with and like the fact there is no destructor in ooeu.
Putting a * for pass by reference needs some thought. If you are going to
have an implicit "this", why not just always pass it by reference?

> instead of this unargumented ranting?
As I admitted then and will for this post too.

> If x has type Myclass, it looks to me completely straightforward that 
> "x=new(blah)" invokes Myclass.new(blah) to create an instance of Myclass 
> and bind it to the identifier "x".
Matt said there was no real distinction in Eu since we have automatic memory
management, which is fine by me.

I suspect your use of "bind" there is a bit of C++-speak that we really should
avoid in Eu-speak as of course bind has a rather different meaning!

Regards,
Pete