I expected to find some special-form, like 'class-variable' or something like
that.
For pedagogical reasons I'd prefer to implement two syntactically different
programs representing the oop thinking style quite obvious: the first one makes
absolutely no use of the bindings provided by the 'class' library that comes
with Racket whereas the second one is mainly limited to take them. The first
one helps the students to understand lots behind the scene of how oop works and
why. The second one abstracts of that and really allows for oo programming.
What I mean is that the terms describing the basic concepts of object oriented
programming should be mapped to related code. Using 'let' to get the right
variable scope causes to mix both levels of thinking / abstraction. Thats
exactly what I like to avoid.
Am 19.01.2012 18:09, schrieb Matthias Felleisen:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Christian Wagenknecht wrote:
How class variables/methods (instead of instance variables/methods) can be
implemented be means of Racket's class definition expressions? An unsatisfying
way I found is by using a let expression enclosing the whole definition of the
class.
What's unsatisfying about it?
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
