David Kastrup wrote: > Well, message passing, the fundamental defining characteristic > of OOP (I mean, this is what made Smalltalk revolutionary with > regard to programming techniques and gave it its name) requires > you to switch sustained execution contexts, basically switching > to a different stack, eveery object having its own control > flow. Synchronous multithreading or whatever you want to call > it. That's what OO is actually about. The in-memory and > synchronous in-process equivalent to separate applications with > separate control flow talking to one another via pipes.
The language I'm currently developing uses C as an intermediate. And in this language message passing is one of the core machanisms. And yes, of course message passing is possible, you just may not implement it in form of simple function calling. The runtime of my language implements a message dispatcher, that delivers messages to each object on the reciever list. An object can decide if it accepts the message and processes it, or if it passes it on, or accepts and re-yields the message. For example it is possible to send a message in a way, that it will be passed up in the hierachy of object instances. Wolfgang Draxinger -- E-Mail address works, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ: 134682867 _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
