[REBOL] Re: pseudo-class inheritance at a price ?
From: chrismorency:videotron:ca at: 7-Oct-2001 23:14
> some months ago I worked an a similiar project, you can find my
> code at the bottom of this mail. It's not very complete, but it
> may inspire you in a way or two :)
Thanks very much for the code, I will certainly look at it. However, my
implantation is almost complete...
> I don't believe this to be a big problem. There are other
> dialects in REBOL differing from "native" REBOL style and
> syntax, e.g. the dialects used for PARSE and VID.
> > 1. new class would be define like this :
> > make-class 'class-name [ ... ]
> > Inherited class would be define like this :
> > make-class/from 'class-name [ ... ] super-class-name
> I for a reason decided against a construct using refinements because this
> would make reading your code unneccessarily hard: The specification of the
> superclass as an argument to a refinement leads to code looking like
> Having a special functions for deriving classes eases reading code a lot,
> allowing for having 'class and 'superclass on the same line of code:
> What do you think?
Actually I had implemented the construct with and without refinements, but
thought it might be easier for developers to use the refinements... I
personnally prefer without. I'll change that ;)
> > 2. Object would be instanciated as :
> > new-object-name: class-name/new
> > I'm thinking about adding an automatic initiation method
> > that would be call when instanciating an object ! What
> > about a destroy method...
> Actually, I haven't thought in deep about that, but as long as
> REBOL has it's own garbage collector, do we really need
> constructors and deconstructors?
Actually, a constructors might be useful to automatically assigned values to
properties... as for the deconstructors, it would'nt be necessary..
> > 4. Within class declaration, methods would be define like this :
> > method-name: func [value !refinement ref-value] [ ... ]
> > However, during execution, refinement would be use as usual :
> > method-name "a value"
> > mathod-name/refinement "a value" "a ref-value"
> I didn't spend effort to allow for method refinements in my OOP-framework,
> but IIRC there was a solution to compose function calls with refinements
> on the mailing list some time ago which shouldn't be to hard to implement.
> But if your refinement defining syntax differs from FUNC's style why not
> rename your FUNC to METHOD, making the difference somewhat more obvious?
> Just a thought, so.
Unfortunately, I really can't use refinements as they are currently being
defined... I would have to change some implementation in my library, and
some of the code of object instance really really redundant... which I try
to minimize. Your idea of a METHOD is great... I'll look at it ;)
> Not beeing a REBOL guru in any way you eventually may find some
> suggestions in my code :)
I'll look at it with interest.