|Feedback for compiler project email@example.com (2001-09-20)|
|Re: Feedback for compiler project firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06)|
|Re: Feedback for compiler project email@example.com (2001-10-10)|
|Re: Feedback for compiler project firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-12)|
|Re: Feedback for compiler project email@example.com (2001-10-12)|
|Re: Feedback for compiler project firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-10-13)|
|Re: Feedback for compiler project email@example.com (2001-10-13)|
|From:||"Joachim Durchholz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||12 Oct 2001 00:16:33 -0400|
|References:||01-09-083 01-10-017 01-10-027|
|Posted-Date:||12 Oct 2001 00:16:33 EDT|
J.van Iddekinge <email@example.com> wrote:
> I suppose you are a OOP programmer.
That's indeed the case.
> Dynamic routine and Oop have both the same kind of advantages but the
> first is related to process and the second to objects. But when
> dynamic routines and oop are combined, the properties of both are
> combined and strengthened, and weaknesses of both systems can be
Hmm... I didn't see that Elaya has classes or any of the other
paraphernalia of OO. Did I overlook something?
> (There are more situation where dynamic routines can be use but I
> think this is enough).
Well, yes. Conceptually, it would be syntactic sugar for a class
consisting of a single routine.
Can be useful. Java uses a similar approach for inner classes (which can
be anonymous), though it is a bit more on the verbose side of the
> Keep in mind that there are several points:
> * Elaya doesn't contain OOP yet!!!
OK, this answers my question.
> * The current implementation of Dynamic routine is a first step for
> a better representation of processes. Many features are still
Then I'll take a look once the language has evolved further.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.