On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruce Mitchener
<bruce.mitche...@gmail.com>wrote:
> business of declaring attributes like this seems to have started in
>> Smalltalk and continued in most of its sphere of influence - declaring this
>> method to be virtual and that field to be private, etc. It just strikes me
>> as fiddly and that there are too many things that can combine in too many
>> ways. But like I said, this is a matter of taste.
>>
>
> Dylan doesn't have protected, public, private adjectives. The visibility
> of a binding is, instead, decided by whether or not it has been exported
> from the module / library. This is discussed some on the Dylan Wikipedia
> page as a difference between classical OO and CLOS-style OO. In classical
> OO, the class is the unit of encapsulation, while in Dylan and CLOS, it is
> the module. This is an extra degree of flexibility and control for the
> Dylan or CLOS programmer.
>
> There aren't really that many modifiers and it is pretty easy to grasp
> when you're using the language. There are also no "virtual" modifiers. :)
>
I've been reminded that while we have no "virtual" modifiers for methods,
we do in fact have one for slots, but it doesn't mean what you're referring
to above with virtual methods:
http://opendylan.org/books/drm/Slots#IX-636
- Bruce
