Hi Rishi,
I think, that you are missing only complications here. What you are saying
is, that Math below is an instance of Object! datatype. You are right. You
are saying, that you would prefer it to be a class. But classes in a lot of
languages (except for C++, Java, ..., AFAIK) are instances of object
datatype too. There is only a little other language classes could do for you
and Rebol objects can't, IMHO. (You can even create a Rebol class hierarchy
using Rebol objects, as I demonstrated.)
Regards
Ladislav
> no. The Math/Pie you have created is an instance variable not a static
> variable. It is associated with an instance of the class, not the class
> itself. A static variable means that there is a single copy of this
variable
> associated with class itself. You do not need to instantiate a class to
use
> static variable. For example:
>
> make-circle: make func [
> radius
> /local blah-blah-blah
> /static num_circles ;let's say this is how you create static var.
> ] [
> num_circles: num_circles + 1 ;this may not be correct but you get the
> idea...
> return make object! [
> ;object code goes here
> ]
> ]
>
> small-circle: make-math(2)
> large-circle: make-math(100)
> print make-circle/num-circles ;this should hypothetically print out 2
> print num-circles ;should print error
>
> Unfortunately, it would not make sense to add a static option the way I
have
> done it since not all functions return objects.
>
> Anyway, the fact that rebol does not have static variables and static
> functions is no big deal. It was probably a concious decision not to
include
> it.
>
> The main advantage of having static variables would be to prevent name
> collisions and to group variables/functions that act on a class (not an
> object) together for use in a more natural way.
>
> The main disadvantage of having static variables is that perhaps it is an
> unnecessary complication. But I don't think so. Maybe because I come from
> java/javascript background. I'm still wondering though if there is a way
to
> have static variables that I don't know.
>
> Regardless, the main problem that I wonder about is if rebol is suited for
> modular programming where people reuse other people's functions/code.
Since
> everything is either global or local, it seems as though it would be
> unnatural to use rebol in this way. Java has packages and stuff...perhaps
I
> am not thinking straight and have too much java in my blood (which I have
> been doing to much of lately and finally got sick of all the abstractions
> that got in the way of doing simple stuff!!)
>
> Rishi
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 6:03 PM
> Subject: [REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:
>
>
> > Rishi wrote:
> > > Math.pi=20
> >
> > >> Math: make object! [
> > [ Pie: 20
> > [ ]
> > >> Math/Pie
> > == 20
> > >> Pie
> > ** Script Error: Pie has no value.
> > ** Where: Pie
> > >>
> >
> > Andrew Martin
> > ICQ: 26227169
> > http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
> > -><-
> >
> >
>
>
