On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 12:44:34 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 10 April 2013 22:37, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]>wrote:
On 4/10/13 2:02 AM, Manu wrote:
I do use virtual functions, that's the point of classes. But
most
functions are not virtual. More-so, most functions are trivial
accessors, which really shouldn't be virtual.
I'd say a valid style is to use free functions for non-virtual
methods.
UFCS will take care of caller syntax.
Valid, perhaps. But would you really recommend that design
pattern?
It seems a little obscure for no real reason. Breaks the
feeling of the OO
encapsulation principle somewhat.
I've started using UFCS more recently, but I'm still wary of
overuse
leading to unnecessary obscurity.
It depends what model of OO you refer to.
I have been reading lately about multi-methods usage in languages
like Dylan and Lisp, which is similar to UFCS, although more
powerful because all parameters are used when deciding which
method to bind.
OO is not only what Java/C#/C++ offer, there are other models
that for whatever reason did not make it into mainstream.
--
Paulo
