On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > > especially non-perl fo
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> much appreciate it.
>
>
> Objects have (all optional):
>
> *) Properties
> *) Methods
> *) Attributes
Can
But the really interesting thing about parrot is that it is primarily
made for very dynamic languages. Personally I think it's quite ok if C#
is a little bit slower under parrot than under mono/dotgnu/MS.NET, as
long as the dynamic languages are as fast or faster than they are now.
/Erik
d if you
> just want to point me at a source file, I guess I can try reading it
> :-) Python basically requires that each step in the process be
> overridable. (1. look up attribute 2. call attribute, at least in
> `callmethod's case).
Ruby needs to call the missing_method m
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 04:05, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:27 PM +0100 1/3/03, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> >On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 00:28, Gopal V wrote:
> >> If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> > language-level "we're object-oriented dammit!&quo
t;
> to put it down clearly ...
>
> MyValueType a;
> a.Modify();
>
> would a be able to modify itself ? (unfortunately C# allows that)
So does ruby. We need that :)
/Erik
--
Erik Bågfors | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Supporter of free software | GSM +46 733 279 273
fingerprint: A85B 95D3 D26B 296B 6C60 4F32 2C0B 693D 6E32
in Perlspeak). Much too
> easy to mangle existing variables like this.
>
Most people agree. In the future there will be a way of doing that.
Matz himself has said so.
/Erik
--
Erik Bågfors | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Supporter of free software | GSM +46 733 279 273
fingerprint: A85B 95D3 D26B 296B 6C60 4F32 2C0B 693D 6E32
