--
A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in
the parent object while passing values during creation.
I think somebody has had a little too much Jolt cola...
There are much better environments to do this in, like NetBeans
And some of us don't know anything *but* xTalk, and I'm happy i don;'t
dot notation and such... let's be very careful...find a way to do the
same thing in verbose xTalk and it will live...infect the language
with obscurity and it will die a slow death from the inside out.
If everyone
Dear Sivakatirswami,
I was brought up on Basic and VB. In VB (VB6 I mean, not VB.NET), the
dot notation is not all that obscure, but nevertheless, after making the
transition to Transcript and its verbosity, the fact that someone might
consider making it more like VB makes my hair stand on
Well, certainly Revolution is OO-like, but it's hard for me coming
from a strong OOD/OOP background to see it as a legitimate OO
offering. The number one rule of encapsulation seems broken most
of the time in xtalk-like languages. When I have multiple buttons on
a card that have the same
I need to stop going to bed. The best posts are while I'm sleeping.
Hey, John, stop hating on Apple FP BASIC! Its predecessor, Integer
Basic, was used from when EPCOT Center in Disney World opened until
almost ten years later to control the spotlights during Laserphonic
Fantasy.
Oh, and while
John Vokey wrote:
All,
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Seriously: what is gained here
that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my
favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)?
Quote: If I could change one thing to improve the quality of our code,
it would
01010011 0110 01110010 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111
0010 01110100 01101000 01110010 0110 01110101 01100111
01101000 0010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011
0010 0110 01100110 0010 01100010 01101001 01101110
0111 01110010 0001 0010
On 2/27/06 6:53 AM, Thomas McGrath III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
01010011 0110 01110010 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111
0010 01110100 01101000 01110010 0110 01110101 01100111
01101000 0010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011
0010 0110 01100110 0010
Integer Basic rocked. It was faster than FP. And with the 'Sweet
Sixteen' 6502 functions by Woz were really useful. I built a lot of
crazy gear for the movie industry with this stuff.
sqb
I need to stop going to bed. The best posts are while I'm sleeping.
Hey, John, stop hating on Apple FP
Hi John:
I am not sure how Revolution ISN't already OO?
I used to feel the same way about HyperTalk: give me an OO concept, and
I'll script something that emulates it.
The difference is, in a true OO language, those concepts are built into
the platform when you open the box.
Rob Cozens
Dear Dan,
In the future, I'll keep my strong opinions to myself.
Please sleep on that thought another night.
Even the best and the brightest and can have a bad day, or find the
path that seems logical viewed differently by others.
If we all agree on everything all the time, what a dull,
On 27 Feb 2006, at 15:12, Stephen Barncard wrote:
Integer Basic rocked. It was faster than FP. And with the 'Sweet
Sixteen' 6502 functions by Woz were really useful. I built a lot of
crazy gear for the movie industry with this stuff.
My old favourites were Basic XL on the old Atari 800
Rob-
Monday, February 27, 2006, 8:33:04 AM, you wrote:
If we all agree on everything all the time, what a dull, homogenous,
narrow-scoped group we have become.
I shudder to think what would happen if everyone agreed with me. It's
bad enough when *anyone* agrees with me...
--
-Mark Wieder
Dear Rob,
Thanks for the information.
Cheers
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Cozens
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:33 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation
Hi John:
I am not sure how
Mark-
Sunday, February 26, 2006, 12:36:57 PM, you wrote:
Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do
an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser. The trick to creating
a child object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a
child object. What is needed
Wishing, indeed, that there was such ensuing 'good humor'... as opposed to
rancour.
:-(
Am I the only remaining non-Vulcan??
Judy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dick Kriesel wrote:
Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax? Or how do non-dot
people learn about the benefits of dots? If the
Am I the only remaining non-Vulcan??
Live long and prosper. :-)
Scott
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
On Feb 25, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
Would you rather have:
(a) No object orientation
(b) OO with the current syntax with poor performance
or
(c) OO with dot notation and acceptable performance
I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones.
Off the top of
On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:
What do dots enable that
Transcript does not?
Properties and methods.
Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't
have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional OO sense.
An object inherits methods
(f) multi-channel sound support (I put this one in for Scott Rossi)
Ooooh! I'd like that.
Scott
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
At 12:20 AM -0800 2/26/2006, Geoff Canyon wrote:
(g) co-routines
(h) anonymous functions
What are co-routines and anonymous functions? (Curious...)
--
jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jaedworks.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
Without personal attacks, (well, as much as is human) my responses are
below:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:
Perhaps more to the point, can you name ANY surviving xTalk? Nope.
They're all pretty much dead except for Transcript. I could argue with
equal weight and perhaps a tad less
Judy.
I preferred to take this off-llist. You chose to make it a public
fight. I choose not to engage.
I did not intend that anyone would see my comment about paranoia as an
attack on any individual or indeed on any specific position on this
issue. I was referring to the general level of
You and me both... for many a year now!!!
'cuz I look really stupid -- no, even stupider than people think I am,
really -- when I offer up to my students Scott Raney's explanation that
'it can't be done on Windows'...
Judy
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:
(f) multi-channel sound
On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:
Judy.
I preferred to take this off-llist. You chose to make it a public
fight. I choose not to engage.
I did not intend that anyone would see my comment about paranoia as an
attack on any individual or indeed on any specific position on this
The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
By Stephen Leahy
Don't work too hard, wrote a colleague in an e-mail
today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know
(sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.
According to recent research published in the Journal
of Personality and Social
On 26 Feb 2006, at 09:04, Richard Gaskin wrote:
The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
By Stephen Leahy
Don't work too hard, wrote a colleague in an e-mail
today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know
(sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.
According to recent research published
The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
By Stephen Leahy
That's why the :-) ;-) :-( :-O
are so useful... -)
Scott
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:
At 12:20 AM -0800 2/26/2006, Geoff Canyon wrote:
(g) co-routines
(h) anonymous functions
What are co-routines and anonymous functions? (Curious...)
A co-routine is kind of like a thread except that it only yields time
at certain
Garrett,
From the brief readings of your few previous posts, it's apparent while
you have very little history with our list and community, you are
certainly quick to join in the fray.
Both Judy and Dan are respected list members, who both have contributed
over a long time to this list,
People, this is not cool. Sleep time.
cheers
David
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:24 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
Garrett,
From the brief readings of your few previous posts, it's apparent
while you have very little history with our list and community, you
are certainly quick to join in the fray.
Both Judy and Dan are respected list members, who
Ahh, the Good Ol' Boy system, and since I'm the new kid on the
block, it's not my place to voice my opinion on something that came
through this list. But since Judy and Dan are part of the Good Ol'
Boy system, it's ok for them to voice their opinion, even
have a flame.
*Sigh*
Scott
classMyObject:
def __init__ (self):
self.initialize()
def initialize(self):
self._value=None
def _setProperty (self, name, value):
print set property
setattr (self, name, value)
def _getProperty (self, name):
print get property
if you guys allow me to squeeze a few words in this (hot) thread,
I'd like to say that the initial post by Dan Shafer contains a couple of
sentences that I would qualify as, ahem embarrassing, especially
due to Dan's huge contribution to the xTalk world for many years...
actually it reminds me of
Dan, Richard, et al:
Just
making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax
using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax
*except* for those people who choose an OO approach to their Rev
projects.
So dot syntax is optional...UNLESS people choose to use
Hi Garrett,
Ahh, the Good Ol' Boy system
No, it's the family system.
Some of us began these discussions over 15 years ago on the early
HyperCard lists. We have discussed many on- and off-topic issues over
the years, publicly and privately. We explore off topic issues more
broadly than
Dude, your rights to post to this list are rapidly diminishing. This
list is MODERATED, and Runrev and the listmom reserve the right to
boot you at any time, for any reason they wish.
I'd say cool it - for the rest of us, and for your own sake, if you
want to get anything out of this list.
I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and
other sages whose wisdom I admire. It is better to be happy than
right. This picture is not who I am or who I want to be, here or
anywhere else.
I sincerely apologize to Judy, and to any member of the list who was
insulted by
Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms
does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very
differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an
embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame.
But I'm bowing, scraping, and
Dan,
Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms
does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very
differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an
embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame.
well again my poor
Understood.
Paradox is inevitable. Resolution of paradox leads to new truth. And
that's quite enough philosophizing for me for one day.
:-)
On 2/26/06, jbv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan,
Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms
does not seem to me to imply any
On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote:
What do dots enable that
Transcript does not?
Properties and methods.
Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't
have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional IO sense.
An object inherits methods
Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child
xTalk varietal approach. I've forgotten now how it worked but I
recall it was hard to learn and very slow.
That may or may not have any bearing on this design, however.
On 2/26/06, Mark Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Mark Brownell; How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation
Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child
xTalk varietal approach. I've forgotten
Problem is, I don't know of any emoticons that say:
I make this argument in all sincerity with no covert aspersions on your
character.
Unless you'd like to point me to it, of course (I could so clearly use it
in my arsenal...).
Judy
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:
The Secret Cause
All,
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Seriously: what is gained here
that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my
favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)?
I have programmed in virtually every language extant (and many no
longer), including most machine
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Mark Brownell; How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation
Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child
xTalk varietal approach. I've forgotten now how
It's nice to see some new 'old school' programmers on this list! What
a great perspective...
welcome aboard to this listif you've just been lurking until now..
sqb
--
stephen barncard
s a n f r a n c i s c o
- - - - - - - - - - - -
___
I have likewise refrained from even opening my computer (a laptop) to read
email until now, a good or nearly 24 hours after the initial
conflagration, in order to try to gain some balance and composure and
understanding.
I've got a big mouth, by which I mean to convey that I am an opinionated
Love conquers all!!
It's a beautiful world today.
sqb
And so I apologize to Dan for having offended him.
Judy
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote:
I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and
--
stephen barncard
s a n f r a n c i s c o
- - - - - - - - - - -
No!
Dan: does not progress occur more often when people disagree than when
they agree?
What is the incentive for progress when everyone is one big mass of
contented, happy campers? (the Rev list comes to mind, for instance: is
it everybody being supremely contented that moves the company to
Mark-
Sunday, February 26, 2006, 12:36:57 PM, you wrote:
Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do
an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser. The trick to creating
a child object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a
child object. What is needed during
in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot-
loader'' so that the machine could get started.
Sometimes I miss converting hex and oct into decimal.
I started my professional career (as opposed to my teenage
programming) programming Data Checker DTS cash registers.
The
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.
Kids, don't try this at home... ;-)
Scott
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
Judy Perry wrote:
1. It being optional didn't stop it from destroying accessibility to
verbose Lingo in Director. Latecomers to Director didn't have any other
learning options or choices than dot.speak.
Yes, I think that's a danger, especially if a large part of the audience
for books
Hi all--except Mr. X :{(
So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it
will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced switch
-- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who
have trained our brains to think in those terms when we
I agree. Any extension to transcript should surely be as natural to
it as possible. Adopting non-xTalk-like syntax wholesale from other
languages would make any real OO stuff more like using applescript or
VBScript in Rev, which is fine and useful, but would tend to be
attractive only to
Amen, Rob.
If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them
in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent).
But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a
focused, internally-consistent one into the mishm-mash of whatever (VB
syntax?
At 4:25 PM -0600 2/24/2006, Peter T. Evensen wrote:
send go to traffic light...
That works for methods, but how about functions?
I have never liked the current transcript syntax of
Value(GetCurrentColor(), TrafficLight).TrafficLight.GetColor()
is much more readable, in my opinion.
On 2/25/06 1:31 PM, Judy Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amen, Rob.
If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them
in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent).
But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a
focused,
Seems like there's a fair bit of paranoia abroad in this land. Just
making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax
using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax
*except* for those people who choose an OO approach to their Rev
projects. Hand-wringing
On 26 Feb 2006, at 02:01, Dan Shafer wrote:
I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones.
So I'd rather have OO with the current syntax and acceptable
performance :)
Mark
___
use-revolution mailing list
Dot-syntax blows. xTalk doesn't.
The problem with allowing radically different syntax conventions is
that you may soon wind up with a tool like *CENSORED*, where you can
mix and match the syntaxes of *CENSORED*, and pretty soon ask
yourself, why did I learn *CENSORED* and avoid learning
Yes, perhaps (I don't agree, but obviously others would)...
However...
You now have TWO different ways of reading Transcript.
How do you know when and how?
And what if VB syntax gets added? and ... whatever else it is syntax that
people can already do in some other pre-existing perfectly
Nonetheless, as a result, Dan,
Lingo became unlearnable/unapproachable from a verbos syntax point of
view. And now it's dead. And, yes, the available books/list syntax
help/whatever played a HUGE part. Handwringing has substantially less to
do with it than the absolute dearth of verbose syntax
Judy,
I'm not saying this *should* be done, so please take it
in the spirit it is meant, that is pure discussional value.
Given your list of choices, I'm forced to select (a). When
you're done, will there be sufficient remaining existing and
potential users to keep the company afloat?
The
My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten
up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a
public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions.
Yeesh.
I'll deal with your personal insult off-list because I don't believe
in responding
On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten
up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a
public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions.
Yeesh.
I'll deal with your personal
On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Scott Kane wrote:
[snip]
It's a compromise. X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for
those
that do not. It's not a far stretch as many development platform
Wouldn't it be smarter to just leave Rev alone and simply produce
another standalone product
Scott,
Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers happy. I may
be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am far, far, from the only
one.
And, well, probably *everyone's* happy that I'm not in charge... ;-)
Judy
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote:
Judy,
The Mac end of
Wouldn't it be smarter to just leave Rev alone and simply produce
another standalone product that fits the dot. ideals?
Don't even mix the two at all, just make separate products.
It would
be totally asinine to mutilate Rev into some abomination.
Err - that's exactly the intention of
Dan,
Wait a minute...
*MY* personal insult??? Weren't you the one who dealt my argument the
death blow of being mere paranoia? After having personally resurrected
it from irrelevantdom?
Does it get more personal than that? I am paranoid therefore my arguments
need not be considered?
And I
Judy,
Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers
happy. I may be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am
far, far, from the only one.
Why would a version of a product that you yourself would
never use be something you'd be opposed to? I'm not sure
I follow you...
Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax? Or how do non-dot
people learn about the benefits of dots? If the dot folks could wrap the
dots within Transcript handlers, maybe they could offer a dot library, like
libDot. Or could a macro language do the trick? What do dots enable that
Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax? Or how
do non-dot people learn about the benefits of dots? If the
dot folks could wrap the dots within Transcript handlers,
maybe they could offer a dot library, like libDot. Or could
a macro language do the trick? What do dots
I love transcript.
It works the way I think.
A script like:
put Don't screw up Transcript into field What RunRev Should Do is just
very easy to conceive.
With transcript like it is, I spend my mental energy thinking about how my
program is going to work and interface, not translating my
I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.
So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
non-object-oriented. I'm OK with that but
Dan Shafer wrote:
I don't disagree, Jonathan, but if you apply that logic to
object-orientation you find yourself in a syntax soup that is
difficult to resolve and leads to huge slowdowns in performance.
So if you vote to keep the language simple, you're voting to keep it
non-object-oriented.
On 2/24/06 12:14 PM, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.Sh
ootMeNow
My vote would be that the option to use dot notation would be quite welcome.
I, too, use programs that become much simpler and functional that way.
What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company for it to
transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major league?
With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of
learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your traditional
programming
At 02:02 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
(which I actually think got it right) uses dot
At 03:14 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
I've said it before and will say it again: If true OO is what you really
want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages? Once Lingo went
down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary humans.
I think there are two issues here,
Judy Perry wrote:
OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language
orientation.
Regex isn't exactly natural, but those that use it like that it's
included as an OPTION.
I don't recall anyone saying that RunRev was going to force users to
replace years of legacy code with
No not this again
Why does he keep bringing this up?
Just poking fun,
Tom
I can read dot but have never really 'liked' it.
On Feb 24, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
I seem to have a knack for starting discussion threads that are
probably just close
At 03:27 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and
again as such
If it keeps causing controversy, isn't it by definition
controversial? ;) (I just couldn't resist)
Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or
Folks,
taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the
way we deal with custom props?
for example imagine the following Traffic Light object with
properties and methods:
TrafficLight.stopColor --- Red
TrafficLight.attentionColor --- Yellow
Hey, Andre, I like this!
Phil Davis
Andre Garzia wrote:
Folks,
taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the
way we deal with custom props?
for example imagine the following Traffic Light object with properties
and methods:
TrafficLight.stopColor
At 03:58 PM 2/24/2006, Andre Garzia wrote:
So why can't we do transcript-ish things like:
set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red
set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs
Would there be any reason to distinguish between custom properties and a
object property? If not, I see the above
Thomas McGrath III wrote:
No not this again
Why does he keep bringing this up?
Got me. I thought we'd already finished this conversation several times.
I don't see the point of hashing it out all over again.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL
This is exactly the way transcript works now, except that it would allow you
to create custom objects.
But that raises a whole new issue...
How would you define a custom object?
Right now, I use groups to create custom objects, like specialized tables
and the like.
But, say we wanted to
You mean like an object template?
Tom
On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Jonathan Lynch wrote:
One thought is that they could create some sort of blank object,
with, like
all possible properties that one could think of, that could be set
from the
property inspector - like a universal object.
Richard Gaskin
Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 8:27 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation
This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and
again as such
Agreed. It'd also be a major attraction, as an option,
for developers coming
In Smalltalk, the basic principle was the use of words parsed left to
right for readability, right to left for precedence of operation.
Parameters were embedded in method calls separated with colons. So,
for example, to create a new instance of a Person object, you would
write something like:
Andre..
While you're not exactly wrong here, you do miss the central
point/issue. To use your example, if I'm designing a traffic system
with lots of TrafficLight objects, I need a way to create individual
instances of that object, give them identifiers, and send messages
either to the
I don't recall this being hashed out and finished several times,
Jacque. Maybe it's been resolved to YOUR satisfaction, but someone
else raised the issue in another thread, so evidently at least some of
us don't think the issue's been resolved.
Except of course this is all hypothetical BS because
Just for the record, I didn't bring this up again. Judy Perry did. I
just moved the discussion to a new thread and offered my opinion.
On 2/24/06, Thomas McGrath III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No not this again
Why does he keep bringing this up?
Just poking
Well maybe one could 'see' an objects functions as properties, like
in Eiffel, or at least in my dim understanding of it.
get the sqrt(9) of mathsObject
Mark
On 24 Feb 2006, at 22:25, Peter T. Evensen wrote:
At 03:58 PM 2/24/2006, Andre Garzia wrote:
So why can't we do transcript-ish
Dan Shafer wrote:
I don't recall this being hashed out and finished several times,
Jacque.
Seems to be an annual event. I see two threads in the archives, February
of 2004 and another in August 2005, and now this one. That doesn't seem
like enough to me, I'm pretty sure there were a couple
On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every
single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have
admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk
(which I actually think got it right)
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
