At 7:44 am -0700 5/9/01, Geoff Canyon wrote: >>For a start one might ask where Transcript stand on: >>1 Data hiding (encapsulation): Where data cannot be accessed except >>throught methods associated with the data? > >Check out the getProp and setProp entries in the language reference. >This can be done (but again, very differently than standard OO). > >> >>2 Inheritance (hierarchy of object definitions): Where new objects >>can be defined to inherit from existing objects? > >Not the way OO does it. I think there's an entry about this >somewhere in the docs, but I don't know where it is offhand. >Basically (no pun intended) in OO an object inherits behavior from >the type of object it is. In Revolution, an object inherits from its >place in the application: the group it is in, the card it is on, the >stack it is in, the mainStack of that stack. > >> >>3 Polymorphism: Where methods in different objects can have the same >>name? > >Sure, you can name them anything you like. One thing that some OO >implementations offer is the ability to have the same method name >with different arguments be two separate methods. You can do this in >Transcript, because you can have a variable number of arguments and >do different things based on what you're handed, but it would be in >one routine, not multiple routines. You're scaring me, Geoff. It's Transcript's lack of these features that make it attractive. :) Cheers Dave Cragg
