Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 06:10 PM, Dave Whipp wrote: >> So, in summary, its good to have a clean abstraction for all the >> HCCCT things. But I think it is a mistake to push them too >> close. Each of the HCCCT things might be implemented as facades over >> the underlying othogonal concepts of data management and execution >> management (hmm, we mustn't forget IO and other resource managers). > > Yeah, that. > > What I STRONGLY SUGGEST WE AVOID is a situation where _some_ of > those interfaces are object-based, using <new Thread:> or similar, > and others of those are trait or keyword based, such as <coro foo> > or <sub foo is coroutine>, and others are implicit and invisible > (closures).[*]
I would be very, very surprised to see a situation where you don't have an object interface to the various things which are more usually made with the various bits of syntactic sugar. A nice, consistent OO API for these things will make the life of macro/refactoring brower/SmalltalkLikeIDE/whatever author so much easier. -- Piers
