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

[Jeff H. <je...@Ac...>]

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 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.

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.

Jeff