[Xotcl] Re: [Xotcl] Re: [Xotcl] re: Method inheritance on class side
bm0005 at sp2.power.uni-essen.de
Wed Apr 25 00:02:27 CEST 2001
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Gustaf Neumann wrote:
> > What is the opinion of the community? Do you need/want such
> > an extended "inheritable proc" or a new language-consttruct?
> > Did you face this problem already, and if yes, was it hard/inelegant
> > to solve?
> Personally I've never had the need for it (per-object procs were fine).
> Usually I'd always want to keep a language as simple as possible. Of
> course if I had a need for such a structure then maybe I would change
> my stance, but until it becomes very common I'm probably content with
> the current system.
We should also mention: the structure can be build quite easily in XOTcl
by overloading the "unknown" method. That is, unknown traverses the
class procs, before trying to forward to create ... in this light, the
question is, whether that has to be the standard mechanism. Despite the
fact that I also came up with the same issue some weeks ago, I would tend
to say now: who requires it, should customize unknown. But I'm not
completely sure yet.
More information about the Xotcl