Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #5858object oriented design decisions
From: Daniel B Hankins
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1988 01:34
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1988 01:34
47 lines
1707 bytes
1707 bytes
In the process of designing an object oriented language, I have come up
against two issues. I have some idea of what to do with them, but would
like to hear other opinions on the topic.
1. Should I have lexical scoping for classes? That is, should I allow:
class X;
.
.
.
class Y;
.
.
.
endclass Y;
endclass X;
where Y is a class name known only within class X. Y knows the names of:
* its scope-children classes
* its scope-sibling classes
* its scope-ancestor classes
Note that this is not an inheritance relation, only a class name
relation.
The purpose of this is to allow situations in which class DRINK and
class TOOL each have a subclass SCREWDRIVER, and each subclass has
different behavior. It also allows class X to have superclass Y. This
can actually be useful on occasion.
2. fine-grained inheritance control.
for instance:
class X;
superclasses A, B, C;
from L inherit K;
.
.
.
where K is a message pattern understood by L or the name of some local
datum of L. If K is a pattern name, then both the handler and any local
data it uses are inherited.
Any comments?
Dan Hankins
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<10610@cup.portal.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankinsShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: object oriented design decisions Message-ID: <10610@cup.portal.com> Date: 29 Oct 88 01:34:50 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 47