On Mar 29, 2011, at 1:12 PM, P T Withington wrote: > > If I had a vote, it would be for a way to explicitly name the `-1th` argument > to a function. And I would wish for it to be available in all function > forms, defaulting to using the legacy name `this`, if not otherwise > specified. I believe it not only addresses the issue in this thread, but > leaves the way open for generic functions. > > [As a user, I infer I fall into your "functional proponent" camp, but I claim > to also be an o-o proponent. I just find it much easier to think in generic > functions and consider the "distinguished receiver" of message passing as > being a degenerate case of that, which has a layer of syntactic sugar to let > you express foo(a, b, c) as a.foo(b, c), if you like to think the other way.]
Yes, the generic function "camp" largely coming out of the Lisp world has always been much more closely assigned with the functional world than with the object-oriented world. To us objectivists a.foo(b,c) really does carry a very different meaning than foo(a,b,c). The OO design process centers on identify the objects that will make up a system, not the functions that make up the system. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
