At 23:03 +0200 2000_12_17, Brennan Young wrote:
>Jakob Hede Madsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
OK, so you model hunting around the sense of smell, whereas I was
thinking more in terms of the visual sense, which creates slightly
different metaphors.
If we are standing in a room, and "you" can see
> > What would be a fair comparison would be to use > plistOfBehaviors]>
>
> Hmm... that's a new syntax for me. I assume plistOfBehaviors
> is a list of
> the instance references of all 44 sprites? Maybe I can learn
> something here. How would that be faster than sendAllSprites?
>
> >I'll
Jakob Hede Madsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > > 3.Never ask an object for the information you need to do something;
> > > rather, ask the object that has the information to
> > > do the work for you.
>
> Bullocks. This guy must be living in a dreamworld.
> If I have a baddie hunting the goo
>But bringing #sendAllSprites in to the equation is just confusing.
In a general discussion of OOP, yes. In my particular instance, I
(cordially? ;-) disagree. I was giving an example of an exception where
exposing a behavior's properties might be acceptable.
On a larger scale, I completely a
At 0:01 +0200 2000_12_17, Brennan Young wrote:
>This 'Getters' and 'setters' debate comes up pretty regularly.
Yes, we need to end it once and for all, by making a decree, with
proper guidelines to which any Lingo-coder must adhere or be banished
from participating in public discussion on the e
At 15:55 -0800 2000_12_16, Kerry Thompson wrote:
>For performance, I used globals for the floater's position and
>direction, because it was faster for the other objects to access a
>global than to do a sendAllSprites from the floater.
On a technical not I'd just like to say that I think this c
Just to add to the OOP discussion from a more pragmatic point of view
In the projects I participate in there are often more than one programmer involved.
Imagine different programmers getting and setting properties in behaviors and parent
scripts they haven´t even written themselves...
We are
>Most of all, it strikes me that if an object needs to see another
>object's property, then something is wrong with the encapsulation.
>Surely, objects provide *services*, not access to their guts.
Brennan, to my mind, you've gone to the heart of the matter in that statement.
I try to write my
This 'Getters' and 'setters' debate comes up pretty regularly.
I'm prepared to fly the OOP flag from time to time, but I've always felt
a little uncomfortable with this idea of having a 'getter' and 'setter'
for each 'public' property.
I've never been able to come up with really good reasons w
