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 my head, I'd rather have
(d) real tables
(e) text rotation
(f) multi-channel sound support (I put this one in for Scott Rossi)
(g) co-routines
(h) anonymous functions
(i) inlining
(j) a map function
(k) (optional) variable typing
(l) macros
But that's me.
As far as object-orientation goes, I proposed object frontscripts and
backscripts about three years ago as a way of achieving many of the
advantages of OO without in any way changing the syntax of the
language or the way it works.
<opening wide and putting my foot dangerously close to my mouth>
Heck, I think I could implement a significant chunk of OO in Rev as
it stands right now, and it wouldn't even take that long. Just insert
a front script, tag an object with a custom property representing its
"class," test the class of the target in the front script to call the
appropriate class routine, and encapsulate values in custom
properties. Automatic inheritance might be a bit tricky, but I'm sure
something could be worked out.
That would go a long way toward the principals of OO without having
to change anything.
I'll shut up now -- I'm tired and probably causing more trouble than
I'm solving.
gc
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
