<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I must admit that I was only thinking
about elegance, and hadn't thought about memory and performance implications.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">One option, I suppose, is to use a flyweight
approach. In other words, pass the list in as a parameter to some function/object.
This is roughly analogous to using the existing list commands in pure Tcl.
The difference is simply that it would be possible to add a number of convenience
functions in an XOTcl implementation. For example, Tcl doesn't have a simple
"add only if it isn't there" command or a simple "copy list"
command (you use lrange with specific arguments) or a simple "delete
element" command (you use lreplace with specific arguments). Such
an approach would only be a small improvement, but maybe it would be enough.
It would certainly be easier than a full implementation of lightweigt objects.
:-)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">You do, however, hint that there may
be plans for ongoing development. Are there specific plans, or just a general
interest is evolving it "somehow"?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Gustaf Neumann <neumann@wu-wien.ac.at> wrote
on 05/12/2003 12:39:44 PM:<br>
<br>
> On Monday 12 May 2003 17:36, Uwe Zdun wrote:<br>
> > This corresponds to the idea of making filters etc themselves
objects.<br>
> > I like this idea from a conceptual point of view. Implementation-wise<br>
> > it could be a larger undertaking ... the problem is that these<br>
> > "collections" manage different things at the C-code
level (Tcl_Obj*s, Cmds,<br>
> > etc) in lists and hashtables and that some parts are not under
control of<br>
> > XOTcl's C code (children are managed by Tcl in Namespaces). So
really a 2.0<br>
> > issue :)<br>
> <br>
> same opinon here; we had already some discussion some time ago
about <br>
> transforming e.g. methods into objects, etc. We did a big step
in <br>
> this direction when <br>
> we implemented our "light-weight objects", which require
namespaces<br>
> etc on demand (please note, that lightweight is relative; see
also<br>
> http://media.wu-wien.ac.at/download/mem.log). But still, objects<br>
> are costly in terms of time and memory.<br>
> <br>
> I am pondering since a while about a simple thing: transforming
<br>
> xotcl parameters into objects. Conceptually, this is quite simple,
but <br>
> has disadvantages from benchmarks etc, whenmultiple objects
are created<br>
> on the fly, in situations where the users expects one class/object
<br>
> to be created. <br>
> Maybe we are able to provide object facades, or to create these
interface <br>
> objects on demand, while keeping low-fat memory strucutures.......
but this <br>
> will take a few releases...<br>
> <br>
> greetings<br>
> -gustaf<br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Univ.Prof. Dr.Gustaf Neumann<br>
> Abteilung für Wirtschaftsinformatik<br>
> WU-Wien, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Wien<br>
</tt></font>