Oleg Kobchenko wrote: > --- "Miller, Raul D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>At least part of this would go away if >>coextend=: coinsert > > Here is a proto of COCLASSPATH-less, coextend-less OOP. > coinsert and other co's still exist and used.
This sounds like a good idea. I tried removing COCLASSPATH and coextend from the scripts, replacing with coinsert, and everything works fine. So, unless we hit some showstoppers, the next beta will have the simplified code. One thing I am not too keen on is the dyadic coclass, which is a little ugly - the dyad has to do a cocurrent, then coinsert, then the cocurrent again. Also, I suspect the dyad might be little used. If coclass was only a monad, its definition would be the same as cocurrent, and we could then remove one definition. I suggest we retain coclass and remove cocurrent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
