Alaric B. Williams
Sat, 17 May 1997 13:49:48 +0000

> Subject:       Re: Archive of Proposals (
> To:  
> Date:          Sat, 17 May 1997 02:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
> From:          BRIAN SPILSBURY <>

> 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
you meant?

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.
> Brian

We're born to argue :-)

Alaric B. Williams (

   ---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---

Plain HTML:

Fancy HTML: