On 2011-03-29, at 17:52, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > 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.
While I appreciate this is a "religious battle", IWBNI there were a solution that allowed alternative religions, rather than only the mainstream one. Hence my vote. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
