meth m(Z Y)
fun {F X} [EMAIL PROTECTED] end
in
Y = {F [EMAIL PROTECTED] Z}}
end
Yes, this is good if you want an auxiliary function used by only that
method. But what if you want an auxiliary function that is shared by 3
methods out of, say, 50 methods. Then it would be nice to be able write
things like this inside a class definition:
local
fun {Aux X}
<some expression perhaps involving attributes>
end
in
meth m1(...)
<statement calling Aux>
end
meth m2(...)
<statement calling Aux>
end
meth m3(...)
<statement calling Aux>
end
end
Writing it like this also makes it clear that Aux does not have direct
access to the method parameters.
class A
attr
f: fun {$ X} X*X end
end
Using this style just to express that a function is local to a class is not
elegant enough for the following two reasons: You need to use an attribute
access to call the function and the syntax for that deviate too much from
ordinary function calls. And what's more, a cell is implicitly created,
which gives the impression that the function might be destructively changed.
These issues are certainly not deadly important. But why not make things
perfect...
.Björn
_________________________________________________________________________________
mozart-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mozart-oz.org/mailman/listinfo/mozart-hackers
