> And attributes are essentially member variables of objects, which you
> can access as "$obj.foo". Another possible description of
> them might be
> lvalue methods which never take arguments, and which fetch and store
> class-specific pieces of data. Different classes may define their own
> pr
Allen Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Peter" == Peter Seibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > Hi, I'm new to this list and haven't had a chance to grovel
> > through the old archives yet so please forgive me for jumping in
> > in the middle of things.
>
> > Anyway,
> "Peter" == Peter Seibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I'm new to this list and haven't had a chance to grovel
> through the old archives yet so please forgive me for jumping in
> in the middle of things.
> Anyway, what about languages that don't attach methods to
>
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> # especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> # much appreciate it.
> ...
> # Attributes are local to a class in an object's inheritance hierarc
At 12:43 PM -0500 3/3/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
AFAIK, though, properties are only attatched to values (not variables),
and are entirely run-time things.
Nope, they can go on both (or either), which makes things somewhat
more interesting.
--
Dan
At 5:30 PM +0100 3/3/03, Erik Bågfors wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > especially non-perl folks,
At 6:29 PM -0800 3/2/03, Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski:
# Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
# especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
# much appreciate it.
...
# Attributes are local to a class in an object's inheritance hierarchy.
# An obje
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/3/03, Erik Bågfors wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
much appreciate it.
Objects have (all optional):
*) Properties
*)
Erik Bågfors wrote:
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
>> Erik Bågfors wrote:
>>> Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If
folks, especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime
in, I'd much appreciate it.
Objects have (all optional):
>>
At 5:54 PM -0800 3/2/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
much appreciate it.
The thing that I noticed was the lack of semantics for creation and
Hence the next
Erik Bågfors wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Objects have (all optional):
> > > >
> > > > *) Properties
> > > > *) Methods
> > > > *) Attributes
> >
Brent Dax wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> # especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> # much appreciate it.
[snip]
> I honestly don't care much about such languages, but how is Parrot
> going to support clas
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > > especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'
From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> > much appreciate it.
> >
> >
> > Objects have (all op
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd much
appreciate it.
The thing that I noticed was the lack of semantics for creation and
destruction. Will there be well defined creation semanti
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> much appreciate it.
>
>
> Objects have (all optional):
>
> *) Properties
> *) Methods
> *) Attributes
Can
Dan Sugalski:
# Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
# especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
# much appreciate it.
...
# Attributes are local to a class in an object's inheritance hierarchy.
# An object can have one "foo" attribute per cla
Benjamin Goldberg:
# Dan Sugalski wrote:
# [snip]
# > All of these--method lookup, property lookup, attribute
# lookup--may be
# > intercepted, and all may have a fallback method that's
# called if the
# > 'proper' lookup fails.
# >
# > I think this about covers it. If there's missing semantic
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[snip]
> All of these--method lookup, property lookup, attribute lookup--may
> be intercepted, and all may have a fallback method that's called if
> the 'proper' lookup fails.
>
> I think this about covers it. If there's missing semantics, and I
> expect I missed something, let
19 matches
Mail list logo
