<html><body>
<p><tt>xotcl-bounces@alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/20/2006 12:29:57 PM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> On 20 Mar 2006, at 18:13, Koen Danckaert wrote:<br>
> <br>
> >>>> I have added "::xotcl::mymethod" and "::xotcl::myvar" to my<br>
> >>>> development version. i guess, you would you prefer to have<br>
> >>>> these exported. Opinions?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> On giving it some thought I think I actually prefer the version <br>
> >>> that would be part of Object. After all, it is that object's <br>
> >>> variable that we want.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I also think it should be methods. An object owns its methods/variables, you should have to ask the object for a reference. Just reach in from outside and grabbing a reference feels...rude.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Asking the object also gives it a chance to overload it. I can't imagine why, but an object might want to know that something has a reference to its internal state.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>> It's only really necessary for variables which are linked to other <br>
> systems as for callbacks you can generally do f.ex.:<br>
> <br>
> after 100 [list [self] doStuff]<br>
> <br>
> which is what I actually do. I mean, presumably the problem with <br>
> using a method by its direct namespace is also that filters get <br>
> avoided, or? (at least I think it was that way at some point in <br>
> XOTcl's history). That, to me, would mean it's not a good method <br>
> except for very specific cases.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>I would expect that [list [self] dostuff] is what [my &method doStuff] returns. Isn't that the desired behavior to return a list that when evaluated acts as though you have invoked the method on the object?</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>At least, that's what snit does with "mymethod". Although snit doesn't have nearly the same design space as XOTcl, so maybe it's not comparable.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt> Scott</tt></body></html>