methods & 1st class messages 
Author Message
 methods & 1st class messages

Quote:
> Prof. J. Gutknecht explained in his 90 min keynote speech the
> main concepts of System3
. . . .
> He also pointed out that this OO-style
> would not have been possible with type-bound procedures but
> requires messages to be first class (message variables).

        Is it just me, or is this confusing programming
techniques with language features?  A handler (any subroutine
accepting a message record as a parameter) can be implemented
as a procedure variable or a type-bound procedure.  Yet, I've
seen this attitude several times before.  Even Drs. Gutknecht
(in his Oberon Tag '93 speech) and Mossenbock (in his essay
"Object Oriented Programming in Oberon-2) seem to neccessarily
identify handlers with procedure variables.  Is this simply an
unfortunate habit of thought, or am I missing an important
point here?

Mike
--

programmer \'pro-,gram-er\ n : a red-eyed, mumbling mammal
capable of communicating with inanimate objects



Mon, 06 May 1996 01:10:56 GMT  
 methods & 1st class messages

Quote:
> > He also pointed out that this OO-style
> > would not have been possible with type-bound procedures but
> > requires messages to be first class (message variables).
>         Is it just me, or is this confusing programming
> techniques with language features?  A handler (any subroutine
> accepting a message record as a parameter) can be implemented
> as a procedure variable or a type-bound procedure.  Yet, I've
> seen this attitude several times before.  Even Drs. Gutknecht
> (in his Oberon Tag '93 speech) and Mossenbock (in his essay
> "Object Oriented Programming in Oberon-2) seem to neccessarily
> identify handlers with procedure variables.  Is this simply an
> unfortunate habit of thought, or am I missing an important
> point here?

What counts is not the distinction between type-bound (methods) and instance-
bound (proc vars) procedures but the existence or non-existence of messages as
first class objects. Handlers in System3 are message handlers, i.e. they get a
message as an explicit parameter, it is not the parameter list which
implicitly represents the message. It doesn't make a big difference to
implement a handler as a type-bound procedure or as procedure variable. Thus,
it would not be justified to introduce methods for this purpose only. However,
If you have different methods for different messages, then you get a different
OOP-style which most people believe to be the only OOP-style. Gutknecht
pointed out that this traditional OOP-style is not sufficient for System3.

- Josef Templ



Wed, 08 May 1996 00:51:04 GMT  
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. 1st-class method closures (was Re: Multiple return values)

2. Classes & Methods

3. Soundformat class & method

4. c++ class-method & Tcl_CreateCommand

5. c++ class-method & Tcl_CreateCommand

6. hidden, secret messages, Classes & other mysteries

7. accessing a instance method from a class method

8. How do I call a method from another method within the same class

9. Class methods vs Instance methods

10. Class method vs instance method???

11. Class method vs instance method???

12. Class methods in ab???.clw files and derived methods

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software