Re: Functional OO

Patrick Logan <patrick_d_logan@ccm.hf.intel.com>
1 May 1996 23:18:46 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Functional OO mtimmerm@microstar.com (1996-04-29)
Re: Functional OO hamel@Think.COM (Lutz Hamel) (1996-04-30)
Re: Functional OO graham.matthews@wintermute.anu.edu.au (Graham Matthews) (1996-04-30)
Re: Functional OO ranjit@fwasted.zk3.dec.com (1996-05-01)
Re: Functional OO patrick_d_logan@ccm.hf.intel.com (Patrick Logan) (1996-05-01)
Re: Functional OO iainf@bristol.st.com (1996-05-06)
Re: Functional OO hans@iesd.auc.dk (Hans Huttel) (1996-05-10)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Patrick Logan <patrick_d_logan@ccm.hf.intel.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.compilers
Date: 1 May 1996 23:18:46 -0400
Organization: Intel
Distribution: inet
References: 96-04-157
Keywords: functional, OOP

Matt Timmermans wrote:
> Is there any known notion of functional object oriented semantics?
> Is there any side-effect free language that could be called object
> oriented?


If I remember correctly, the Actor languages from MIT (Hewett, Agha
(sp?)). Note this is not the "Actor" product for Windows of a few
years ago. This is a research effort with the same name. (And they
used it first, too.)


--
Patrick_D_Logan@ccm.hf.intel.com
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.