But is this style of OOP thinking because of a weakness in the design of the OOP that Racket (as it famously inherits from Scheme (ala Clinger's intro to the RnRS reports)) avoids?
Robby On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Christian Wagenknecht <c.wagenkne...@hs-zigr.de> wrote: > I expected to find some special-form, like 'class-variable' or something > like that. > > For pedagogical reasons I'd prefer to implement two syntactically different > programs representing the oop thinking style quite obvious: the first one > makes absolutely no use of the bindings provided by the 'class' library that > comes with Racket whereas the second one is mainly limited to take them. The > first one helps the students to understand lots behind the scene of how oop > works and why. The second one abstracts of that and really allows for oo > programming. > > What I mean is that the terms describing the basic concepts of object > oriented programming should be mapped to related code. Using 'let' to get > the right variable scope causes to mix both levels of thinking / > abstraction. Thats exactly what I like to avoid. > > Am 19.01.2012 18:09, schrieb Matthias Felleisen: > >> >> On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Christian Wagenknecht wrote: >> >>> How class variables/methods (instead of instance variables/methods) can >>> be implemented be means of Racket's class definition expressions? An >>> unsatisfying way I found is by using a let expression enclosing the whole >>> definition of the class. >> >> >> What's unsatisfying about it? > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
