bill lam wrote:
> Is it guarantee that at any point, {.copath 18!:5'' being the class
> from which the object is conew-ed from? (assuming the object is
> indeed conew-ed from something)
That seems to be guaranteed when create is being executed by conew.
> >>BTW is "cocurrent" now redundant in J601?
> >
> > I find uses for it, but maybe for your purposes it is redundant.
> Eric said coextend=: coinsert is extra baggage. By the same token,
> so is cocurrent=: coclass
I don't use coclass for oo programming.
I use:
class_z_=:3 :0
coinsert y
18!:4 coname''
)
new_z_=:3 :0
o=. cocreate''
((,copath)coname'') copath o
this__o=: o
create__o y
o
)
create_z_=: ]
destroy_z_=: codestroy bind ''
Usage example:
class_example_''
obj=: new_example_''
destroy_obj_''
I've not nailed down all the reasons yet, but I find myself far
more comfortable with this notation than with coclass.
Nevertheless, this approach works with classes which were
implemented using coclass.
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
