🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug25.124659.25394@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> larry@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Larry Maturo) writes:
>
>I think I am finally able to understand what is going on.  You don't want to
>pass an object by value since you could not change it's state, which makes no
>sense since changing it's state is one of the primary things you do with an
>object.  Espically since in Oberon-2 you can already mark fields as read only
>so there should never be a case where you have a type bound procedure that
>does not change an objects state.  This being the case the only way you can
>pass it is as a pointer or a VAR parameter.

I think you get something wrong here. As a type-bound procedure has to be
defined in the same module as the type it's bound to, it always has write
access to all fields of that (record-)type (except of course the fields that
are inherited from its supertype and that are not exported or exported as
read-only). I also don't see why you don't want an object's method to be
able to change the object?

Juerg Wanner	jw@owf.ch
OWF AG
Asylstr. 125
8032 Zuerich
Switzerland