On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote: > Therefore, I'm inclined to think that insets *should* know > about their buffer. I believe this will make many things > simpler.
I forgot to elaborate on this: It's comparable to the discussion about whether to use object oriented programming, or functional programming. Functional programming typically uses the "threaded" model, where the parameters are passed down all the way down the hierarchy as needed. Object oriented programming solves the same problem by keeping the information in an object, and then the stuff that needs it can access it directly. Both styles have their advantages and disadvantages. However, I note a trend in functional programming I think we should heed: The threading model is cumbersome to use, because it's a PITA to pass all those parameters all the way down the hierarchy. This stiffles change, because to introduce a new parameter requires changes all over the place. Therefore, most functional programming languages are introducing object orientation into their type systems. The reason is simply that in many cases the problem is better solved by encapsulating the information in an object that all the stakeholders have access to. This is more maintainable over the long run. Greets, Asger
