Alaric B. Williams
Sat, 17 May 1997 13:49:48 +0000
> Subject: Re: Archive of Proposals (http://www.neosoft.com/~jordan/Lispers
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 02:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
> From: BRIAN SPILSBURY <email@example.com>
> ABW> Structure objects /are/ immutable, and count as sets of def-bindings, BTW,
> ABW> which may be bound to variables, of course. val-bindings seem to make little
> ABW> sense inside an object?
> How about inside a method object.
What, you mean in the code? Yes, you make them either implicitly with
argument bindings, or with some kind of let statement. Is that what
By object above, I was referring to "object of user-defined implementation type",
let's call it a struct, even though it's really more like an instance of a class...
struct is smaller. Things like integers have classes, too, just you can't
/make/ these classes via the user-class-defining-method, since they're fundamental,
and allowing flexibility into the primitive type implementations hierachy would
restrict implementation somewhat.
You're welcome to make objects that obey primitive type *interfaces*, though,
so I don't think you lose out here?
There really should be a better term for "instance of class" than "object", which
tends to cover things like tables, computers, and people as well.
We're born to argue :-)
Alaric B. Williams (firstname.lastname@example.org)
---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---
Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html