From: Brian H. <bh...@sp...> - 2004-05-29 15:13:57
|
On 29 May 2004, skaller wrote: > On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 10:21, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:19:43PM -0500, Brian Hurt wrote: > > > To my mind it seems pretty clear that using the non-OO > > approach is a dead end because there are all these > > tradeoffs to consider > > [Class factorisation exhibited] > > Why can't this also be done with functors, > modules, and constraints? > > It may be harder to write the code than using classes, > but is it possible? Is there anything with classes > that you cant do here with functors, if so what? > > I want to be able to call a generic "next" function on any enumeration- a next function that needs state bound to it. The current implementation uses partial application to bind state to the function, my implementation used objects. I don't know how to bind state to a function using modules. -- "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford Brian |