OpenEuphoria

Re: Structures; etc.

• Posted by Michael Nelson <mike-nelson-ODAAT at WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Jan 31, 2000
• 508 views

David Cuny wrote:

>If Euphoria had classes, you wouldn't need structures. The data would be
>encapsulated into the classes, not in sequences. So you'd avoid having to
>add all that overhead to sequences.
>
>I vote Yes. Implementing namespace *is* OOP. For example:
>
>   class = include file
>   objects = scoped variables
>   methods = scoped routines
>   inheritance = scoped include files
>
>-- BEGIN EXAMPLE --
>
>   -- point.e
>   integer x, y
>
>   procedure init( initX, initY )
>      x = 0
>      y = 0
>   end procedure
>
>   procedure plus( integer dx, dy )
>      x += dx
>      y += dy
>   end procedure
>
>-- END EXAMPLE --
>
>The above example, declares a Point class. Currently, we only get a single
>instance of the class. Namespaces clarifies that we really *are* dealing
>with a class:
>
>   point.init( 10, 20 )
>   point.add( 3, 4 )
>   ? { point.x, point.y }
>
>The only thing that we won't have is the ability to create more than one
>instance. If you add that, you've got a complete OOP system:
>
>   module point declares class point
>   point point1, point2
>
>   point1.init( 10, 20 )
>   point2.init( -30, 10 )
>
>Note that:
>
>   - types don't have to be added to sequences
>   - old code doesn't break
>   - people don't *have* to use OOP
>
>-- David Cuny
>

David, I find your ideas fascinating--would you be will to provide some more
detailed examples?  The idea class=include file seems very Java-Like to me.

--Mike Nelson