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

[Will D. <wi...@wj...>]

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 agree that there's a need to be able to create nameless objects;
and for some classes, nameless objects might be all you need.
But there's also a substantial need to created named objects, and
oo:: needs to support it.  (As it does in the current proposal.)

I'd argue that because of Tk there's also a need for unique names
based on a pattern of some kind...but it's begin to appear that
I've already lost that argument. Oh, well.

WIll


On Sep 28, 2005, at 5:47 AM, Kristoffer Lawson wrote:

>
> On 28 Sep 2005, at 12:27, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>
>
>
>> Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think this could be a case of pure aesthetics. I don't like =20
>>> the  idea of giving "" to do that. It just looks ugly. In fact, I =20=

>>> find  that naming objects myself is the rare case. When passed =20
>>> around they  get put in variables anyway, so why not do it right =20
>>> from the start  and not bother about naming.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The last time I did an OO system (last conference) I had it so that
>> objects were always created "nameless" (i.e., with automatic =20
>> names) and
>> it was up to the constructor to rename them if it wanted to. The idea
>> was that it's usually particular classes of objects that need to be
>> named, and often enough the names are really constrained by external
>> factors. Making people name everything is a good way of =20
>> encouraging the
>> creation of subtle and annoying bugs (hands up if you've ever =20
>> created a
>> photo image called "open" and wondered why your program stopped =20
>> working?
>> :-/ )
>>
>>
>
> This sounds like a reasonable approach. There is rarely need to =20
> give specific names to objects and, as you put it, it can cause =20
> more problems than it's worth. I think we'd be quite fine with only =20=

> providing auto-naming.
>
>
>
>> "Looks ugly" is an argument about the =E6sthetics of code, and that's
>> entirely relevant; writing code is hard enough without it also =20
>> being an
>> experience in being dragged through ugliness. :-)
>>
>>
>
> Agreed :-)
>
>            /  http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/
>
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------
        will -at- wjduquette.com | Catch our weblog,
http://foothills.wjduquette.com | The View from the Foothills