Re: RE: RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent>

2000-10-14 Thread Kurt Griffin
> Kurt, their is a new "handlers" function in d8 which should help you do this > more efficiently. Just try executing this line in one of your objects and > see what you get: > > put me.handlers() > > Makes it very easy to interrogate any object as to what handlers it has > available. True, bu

Re: Re: RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-14 Thread Kurt Griffin
> Kurt, > > I like your mGetMethods method. I also use "m" for method names, but > just of our curiousity, why did you choose the letter "h" to mean > private? I sometimes use "i" as a prefix for internal method. > > Irv Nothing too mysterious - "handler". -Kurt [To remove yourself from th

Re: RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-13 Thread Irv Kalb
> > >put gWhateverObj.mGetMethods() will show someone every "public" method in an >existing object - as a convention, I start all public methods with "m", and >private ones with "h". It keeps the object encapsulated, and all one needs >to remember is the mGetMethods() call, which will show all of

RE: RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-13 Thread Stephane Comeau
Hi, Kurt, their is a new "handlers" function in d8 which should help you do this more efficiently. Just try executing this line in one of your objects and see what you get: put me.handlers() Makes it very easy to interrogate any object as to what handlers it has available. Steph > Back to t

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-13 Thread Jakob Hede Madsen
>Jon Rowe wrote: > > >> I can't find a way to construct a movie without > >> using at least one global variable ... which holds > >> references to all the other objects and needs to > >> be accessible from all scripts. > >Another of many ways to do this is to use sprite 1, spanning the whole >

Re: RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-13 Thread Kurt Griffin
> At 5:30 PM +0100 10/12/00, kevin dowd wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Is having this kind of set up in your Object O.K. >> >> >> >> on settheProp me, theProp, theVal >> me[theProp] = theVal >> end >> >> on broadcastProp me, theProp >> return me[theProp] >> end >> > > > kevin, > > While this cert

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-13 Thread Mark MacKenzie
Jon Rowe wrote: >> I can't find a way to construct a movie without >> using at least one global variable ... which holds >> references to all the other objects and needs to >> be accessible from all scripts. Another of many ways to do this is to use sprite 1, spanning the whole movie, as your to

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread Irv Kalb
At 5:30 PM +0100 10/12/00, kevin dowd wrote: >Hello, > >Is having this kind of set up in your Object O.K. > > > >on settheProp me, theProp, theVal > me[theProp] = theVal >end > >on broadcastProp me, theProp > return me[theProp] >end > kevin, While this certainly works, I wouldn't do that fo

Re: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread R. Bhakti Klein
of course those properties would still have to be declared, and that can't happen on the fly. However, you're right, in some ways it's better to have a generic get/set into which you can send both the property and the value, instead of separate ones for each prop. --bh kevin dowd wrote: > > He

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread kevin dowd
Hello, Is having this kind of set up in your Object O.K. on settheProp me, theProp, theVal me[theProp] = theVal end on broadcastProp me, theProp return me[theProp] end settheProp #newProp, 42 -- creates and assigns a new property with the instance settheProp #existingProp, 42 -- assi

Re: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread Irv Kalb
At 11:10 AM +0100 10/12/00, Jon Rowe wrote: >hi all > > >1. When, if ever, is it 'allowable' to access a property without using >an accessor method. e.g. I have a general object manager called HQ which >holds references to all my other objects (speechMngr, animationMngr >etc.) Now say I want to ma

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread Jon Rowe
e too long either (gives self pat on back too!) cheers Jon > -Original Message- > From: Robert Wingate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent > > > &

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread Robert Wingate
> 1. When, if ever, is it 'allowable' to access a property without using No improvement on Mark's answer is necessary, so I'll leave it there. > 2. I can't find a way to construct a movie without using at least one > global variable There is a way, but it may or may not work in your situation.

RE: OOP - conventions, not urgent

2000-10-12 Thread Mark R. Jonkman
Hi Jon >From a "purist" view, you should never access or set the property of another object without using a get/set function call. If you break from a "purist" standpoint on the access you stand the chance that your code will completely blow apart if someone is stupid and changes the name of a pr