Class -> Object -> Thread

[Gary D. Duzan]

In Message <9304041128.27854@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ,
   Michael David WINIKOFF <winikoff@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:

=>Is it important that compilin g/linking have nice semantics?
=>I feel it ios more important to have a nice clean semantics for the OS
=>interface that a program sees rather then working compiling into
=>the object framework.

   Quite true. I wasn't actually thinking of compiling semantics
at the time; I just wanted to clarify what I meant a class to be.
The compiler can just be an object which takes the source code as
an input, and returns a new class. Semantically, this isn't too
different than compilers in other systems, and shouldn't take too
much modification to implement.

=>-- I see simplicity as more important then objects -- a complex
=>OO system willIMHO be a failure.

   But if we can make a simple, efficient object based system, we
will probably be better off than making an ad hoc design. Building
a special inheritance mechanism for MOOSE objects may not be
necessary or desirable, but we should have separate objects
accessing each other concurrently via a method call mechanism as
the central concept behind the system. We can always emulate
inheritance at the language level (though it may be a good idea to
maintain an object library object to assist the linker with binding
(early binding directly, or late binding, via stubs.)) A base
object is little different than any other object, after all.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration
                         Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts