On 13 Sep 2003, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time.
>
> Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics.
> Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern
> language.
Oh, I dunno -- it's not like there's all that much to objects, but I might
be a touch biased here. (I'd say they're worth more time because people
get so worked up over them, not because they're particularly complex,
complicated, or difficult)
> Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object forest,
> like Inform has, where irrespective of class any given object can have
> up to one parent at any given time,
Multiple parent classes, yes. Parent objects, no. (Unless you consider
composition of objects from multiple parent classes with each class having
instance variables in the objects as multiple parent objects. In which
case the answer's yes)
> which can change at runtime,
Well, the inheritance hierarchy for a class can change at runtime, though
we'd really rather you didn't do that, so I suppose you could do it for
individual objects--they'd just get a transparent singleton class that
you'd mess around with from there. I think I may be missing your point.
> and
> be able to declare objects as starting out their lives with a given
> parent object, move them at runtime from one parent to another (taking
> any of their own children that they might have along with them), fetch
> a list of the children or siblings of an object, and so forth?
Erm.... I don't think so. I get the feeling that Inform had a different
view of OO than we do.
Dan
