>>
>
> Anonymous classes in Java close over their lexical environment (can
> refer to variables in that lexical environment, with values bound at
> the time of instance construction) with the caveat that only local
> variables/parameters marked as 'final' may be referred to. Aside from
> the hor
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Martin Coxall wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2010, at 09:51, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins
> wrote:
>>
>> Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's
>> true (although technically speaking it is possi
Peter Verswyvelen writes:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins
> wrote:
>
> Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural,
> it's true (although technically speaking it is possible). That
> said, nobody's yet to present a convincing argument to me why
argument.
>
>
> From: haskell-cafe-boun...@haskell.org
> [mailto:haskell-cafe-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Peter Verswyvelen
> Sent: 13 January 2010 09:52
> To: Gregory Collins
> Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] How to fulfi
On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Type classes allow you to dispatch based on return type, and on the
instantiations of generic parameters. Neither of these things is
reasonably possible with interfaces.
There is recent work that generalises the capabilities of inter
llins
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] How to fulfill the "code-reuse" destiny of
OOP?
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins
wrote:
Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and
unnatural, it's
true (although technically
On 13 Jan 2010, at 09:51, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins
> wrote:
> Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's
> true (although technically speaking it is possible). That said, nobody's
> yet to present a convincing argumen
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins wrote:
> Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's
> true (although technically speaking it is possible). That said, nobody's
> yet to present a convincing argument to me why Java gets a free pass for
> lacking closures a
Magicloud wrote:
> I am not saying that the code has to be in OO style. When I say OO is
> general, I mean I am thinking in OO style. This reflects on modeling,
> program structure, even code organization.
> Style is how we present things. I think that is less important than
> how we think about th
I am not saying that the code has to be in OO style. When I say OO is
general, I mean I am thinking in OO style. This reflects on modeling,
program structure, even code organization.
Style is how we present things. I think that is less important than
how we think about things.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Michael Vanier wrote:
> Gregory Collins wrote:
>
>> Tom Davie writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The
idea is so general that if you say I cannot us
Gregory Collins wrote:
Tom Davie writes:
On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:
After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The
idea is so general that if you say I cannot use it in Haskell at all,
that would make me feel weird. The only difference between la
Tom Davie writes:
> On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:
>> After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The
>> idea is so general that if you say I cannot use it in Haskell at all,
>> that would make me feel weird. The only difference between languages
>> is, some are
Yoda Master tells understands he you not, inheritance naked can be
how, you clarify please asks he to.
2009/10/31 Magicloud Magiclouds :
> Somehow, I agree with you.
> I think inherit is not evil, the people use it wrong is. The problem
> here is, inherit is naked right now. So people could use it
On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:
> After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The
> idea is so general that if you say I cannot use it in Haskell at all,
> that would make me feel weird. The only difference between languages
> is, some are easy to be in OO style, so
After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The
idea is so general that if you say I cannot use it in Haskell at all,
that would make me feel weird. The only difference between languages
is, some are easy to be in OO style, some are not.
2009/10/31 Andrew Coppin :
> Rogan Cr
Somehow, I agree with you.
I think inherit is not evil, the people use it wrong is. The problem
here is, inherit is naked right now. So people could use it wrong.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Peter Verswyvelen :
>> The following is purely my own experience, I
Rogan Creswick wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds
> wrote:
>
>> My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
>> inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
>> inherit a "data"?
>>
>
> In my experience (almost ent
2009/10/30 Peter Verswyvelen :
> The following is purely my own experience, I have no links to papers
> of clever people :)
>
> I think none of the inheritance techniques work perfectly. E.g.
> describing everything with OO interfaces (=a extensible record of
> function pointers) is also problemati
The following is purely my own experience, I have no links to papers
of clever people :)
I think none of the inheritance techniques work perfectly. E.g.
describing everything with OO interfaces (=a extensible record of
function pointers) is also problematic IMHO, at least when you have
side effect
> "Magnus" == Magnus Therning writes:
Magnus> It seems I was wrong in my assumption about "data
Magnus> inheritance", "implementation inheritance" is just as
Magnus> evil.
Both are fine.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
___
Haskell-Ca
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Martijn van Steenbergen
wrote:
> Magnus Therning wrote:
>>
>> IIRC James Gosling once said that if he were to design Java today he would
>> leave out classes. I suppose partly due to many of the issues with "data
>> inheritance".
>
> This sounds interesting. Can y
2009/10/30 Martijn van Steenbergen :
> Magnus Therning wrote:
>>
>> IIRC James Gosling once said that if he were to design Java today he would
>> leave out classes. I suppose partly due to many of the issues with "data
>> inheritance".
>
> This sounds interesting. Can you link us to an article, pl
On this subject, I think, any "content inherit" would lead to trouble
somehow. But is that the reason that we should totally cut them loose?
I mean the way of programming developing is easier making (writing),
easier maintaining. In fact, I think this is a fork in front of me:
Before any new though
Magnus Therning wrote:
IIRC James Gosling once said that if he were to design Java today he would
leave out classes. I suppose partly due to many of the issues with "data
inheritance".
This sounds interesting. Can you link us to an article, please?
Thanks,
Martijn.
_
On 30/10/09 05:32, Rogan Creswick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds
wrote:
My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
inherit a "data"?
[..]
The point of that whole r
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds
wrote:
> My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
> inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
> inherit a "data"?
In my experience (almost entirely with Java), it is usually a bad idea
to
Hi,
I think when people talk about OOP, especially the inheriting, their
focus mainly is on functions (methods).
My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
inherit a "data"?
--
竹密岂妨流水过
山高哪阻野云飞
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
