OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria being OO Survey.

• Posted by Ken Rhodes <ken_rhodes30436 at yahoo.com> May 15, 2003
• 709 views

--- Derek Parnell wrote:

" It [OOP] would sure make it [Win32lib] easier to  
extend and have add-ons. Currently, to do
most new controls you have to know the library's
internals etc... "

" However, if Euphoria is not going to be OO, then to
do so for win32 comes at QUIET AN OVERHEAD.  "
-------------------

Considering that an entry level pc now runs with
a 2gighz cpu and that the Eu2C translator is very
economically priced - should the OOP "OVERHEAD" still
be considered prohibitive?


--- Mike Nelson <MichaelANelson at WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
wrote:
> 
> I am putting the finishing touches on Diamond 3.0,
> with many improvements.

What are some of the improvements, Mike?

> My next project will be a preprocessor enabling dot
> notation.
> 
> I need to figure out a notation for events--in
> Diamond, events are not
> properties or methods, they are a third thing.
> 
> x.y=z   means set_property(x,"y",z)
> x=y.z   means x=get_property(y,"z")
> x=y.z() means x=call_method(y,"z",{})
> 
> What would be good notation for
> link_handler(x,"y#1",z) and raise_event(x,"y",{z}) ?
> 
> (The "y#1" in link_handler is because events can be
> overloaded based on the
> number of parameters--it is needed because x might
> also have a y#0 or y#2
> event.)
> 
> I'm leaning towards
> 
> x!y(1)=z   and   x!y(z)
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> -- Mike Nelson