Re: Where Tcl and Tk went wrong; {SPAM?} Re: Where Tcl and Tk went wrong

[Aleirade <aleirade@...>]

--------- Mensagem Original --------
De: Lua list <lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br>
Para: Lua list <lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br>
Assunto: Re: Where Tcl and Tk went wrong; {SPAM?} Re: Where Tcl and Tk went
wrong
Data: 31/03/10 13:56

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Jerome Vuarand
> <jerome.vuarand@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It could be argued that Lua has a "blessed" OO system, with the file
> > objects being its unique representative in the standard libraries.
> 
> This is true, otherwise we would not have the colon pseudo-operator.
> It's just that newcomers might be a little frightened of
> setmetatable() etc when they come to write their own 'classes'. (This
> is not an argument for extra built-in sugar, BTW.)
> 

Not for built-in sugar maybe, but I do miss OO features such as property
visibility control. I think classes as first-class values would be a great
addition to Lua, even only for standardization:

[[
Furthermore, even experienced Tcl programmers who wanted to share their code
could not utilize an OO system if they wanted their code to work with just
standard Tcl.  Also, if their code had a dependancy on some OO system, it
would require the user to download not only the extension in question, but
the OO system it was built on, which, naturally, might conflict with
whatever OO system the user had already selected!
]]

Andre

________________________________________________________________
Mensagem enviada pelo Microlink Webmail 12.7.8p3