Re: Idea for NameSpace-problem
Am I missing something here.. Euphoria is already OOP-Enabled, only not
OOP-Activated to speak in the words of the guy behind all the OOP-Ideas..
I proposed the idea, knowing OOP was already available in Euphoria, and
orginally just trying to find a way to context-sensitive program. However I
am pretty pleased some of you actually read it all, it is pretty complex to
grasp I guess.
OOP is a programming style, and Euphoria makes it very easy to program that
way. Look at my old GFX, the virtual screens & sprites, were all programmed
OOP style.
Just call the routine belonging to the 'object', passing all non-static vars
as a sequence which we call the object sequence. The static vars are kept as
locals within the file that holds the routines.
And thanx to the new routine id's we can now also have custom routines, for
those objects that will have a simelar interface for the programmer (to use
those routines), but need different routines for that task.
Maybe some1 knowing all the right terms and whos able to write them also,
write a little tutorial for those thinking Euphoria isn't OOP.
Only inheritance is a missing point, but with nowadays programming editing
capabilities we can cut & past just as easily.
Euphoria is just way beyond OOP, a lot more mature and has a more liberal
wider perspective than most programming languages. All limitiations lie
behind the hardware.
Ralf N.
-- Previous message:
>> Why not just implement simple OOP objects? That way all globals are
>> referred to by their declared object names
>I went with Euphoria precisely because I wanted to avoid an OOP
metaphor.
>I also agree with the need for separate namespaces, but I'm unwilling
to
>go whole hog. I like the fact that Euphoria still lets you write quick
and
>dirty scripts, and there's no OOP tongue I know of that lets you do
that
>without a lot of handwaving.
True..I'd like to be able to do both. For quick and dirty stuff, its
great not to have to use it. But for large programs it would be nice if
you could i.e. for a zillion include files or in Windoze programming
which uses objects allot!
>Someone proposed having things accessible by tacking on the .e filename
or
>whatever (so graphics.e.line or graphics_e_line, or possibly include
>graphics.e as graphics and use graphics_whatever), and I think this is
a lucid
>solution without going object crazy.
This drives me crazy having to try to remember all the cryptic variable
names that I have to use to avoid conflicts with everybody else's
include files. :)
IMHO,
Greg Harris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
