I found it really right now just by looking for 'class-vars'-things. I didn't
read it through and I do not know who the authors are. Thanks for your comment.
--Christian
Am 20.01.2012 14:12, schrieb Matthias Felleisen:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Christian Wagenknecht wrote:
Nevertheless
On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Christian Wagenknecht wrote:
>
> Nevertheless there are obviously also other people looking for appropriate
> syntactical representations of the OOP terms (mainly for teaching purposes as
> I guess): Right now I found
> http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=oop%20
I am very thankful for the advices of all contributors which help me to rethink
my goals. There are only some quite simple rules the students have to apply
when defining classes, for example: employ an internal definition (represented
by 'define' / 'define-values') to implement a (private) inst
Of course.
On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> In Java for example which doesn't have modules you would create a
> class whose sole purpose in life was to hold those constants. Did you
> guys make that choice consciously?
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Robby Findler
> w
In Java for example which doesn't have modules you would create a
class whose sole purpose in life was to hold those constants. Did you
guys make that choice consciously?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> But is this style of OOP thinking because of a weakness in the design
On Jan 19, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> The Racket class system doesn't have such a thing because it doesn't need it.
> The idiomatic Racket alternative to "class variables" or "static members" is
> to define the variable/constant/function at the top-level of the enclosing
> modul
But is this style of OOP thinking because of a weakness in the design
of the OOP that Racket (as it famously inherits from Scheme (ala
Clinger's intro to the RnRS reports)) avoids?
Robby
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Christian Wagenknecht
wrote:
> I expected to find some special-form, like 'c
The Racket class system doesn't have such a thing because it doesn't
need it. The idiomatic Racket alternative to "class variables" or
"static members" is to define the variable/constant/function at the
top-level of the enclosing module.
This scope-based solution also eliminates what in other
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 'cla
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 o
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.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.
11 matches
Mail list logo
