Re: [TCLCORE] Re: TIP #257: Object Orientation for Tcl

[Gustaf N. <ne...@wu...>]

Jeff Hobbs schrieb:

> Will Duquette wrote:
>
>> I'm all for aesthetics.  But I disagree that msot objects
>> are created "nameless".  In Tk, every widget has an explicit name.
>> And in my applications there are often quite a few singleton
>> objects defined with well-known names.
>>
> I would not make the argument against nameless objects based
> on Tk.  I have programmed Tk using several other languages
> (Ruby, Perl and Python), and have found that with reasonable
> parent relationships, there is very little need to name
> widgets specifically.  You have it in Tk due to Tcl's lack
> of OO and Tcl/Tk's requirement by design.

I have missed the begin of this discussion, i hope i am not off-topic....

Bare in mind, that classes are objects as well. One might
want to configure classes and objects (like in the tk options
database or .Xdefaults).

Furthermore, unnamed objects/classes makes it more cumbersome
to define programs
   if one cannot refer to e.g. ::xotcl::Object, one needs probably a 
bunch of
   same-named variables (e.g. $::xotcl::Object), same is true for
   refering to classes e.g. in superclass, mixins, etc.
debug programs
   puts "[self]->[self class] something wierd...." will be meaningless
   furthermore it will be hard from the message to locate the right method
or to define graphical browsers for the object system

As Tcl/xotcl/oo::tcl are **command**-based, it would be pretty much the
same as supporting only unnamed procs, like in
  set p [proc arg1 arg2 arg3]
  .... [$p a b c]

so, from my experience, it makes send to have both, named and unnamed 
objects
(that s why xotcl has both "create", and "new").
 
-gustaf