> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28computer_programming%29 > "Classes are composed from structural and behavioral constituents."
Of course, using such a definition, even Fortran IV code consisted of classes! > > which is _exactly_ what gbuild does in the best way supportable in make. Best way supportable? It is not hard to imagine even more elaborate/elegant/complex way to write code using GNU Make functions/macrosthat would make possible actual OO concepts like inheritance and virtual functions. Like not defining functions directly but through some meta function, and calling functions of some class through a meta-function that would handle looking up the method in a class inheritance hierarchy etc. No, I don't think that would be a good idea necessarily. But surely you are suffering from some kind of bias if you think the current situation is the best possible. > GObject also uses this vocabulary in a non-OOP language and if it wouldnt, > it > would be even harder to grok the concepts. ;) C is a completely different language than Make macros. --tml
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice