From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 19:42:04 -0500 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <86zkqf46vz.fsf@cmarib.ramside> References: <86ipx4s36p.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <86ei7ry76s.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <86zkqf46vz.fsf@cmarib.ramside> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely Topicbox-Message-UUID: a7200e00-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > There's a reason it does not use that stuff, and it may not be what > > you think. > > OK, come on already, quit teasing me! :) What's the secret reason? when ron says this it's almost always a formula that means that it was not done out of ignorance, stogginess, etc. as oo proponents tend to assume. odd but true fact: not everyone agrees that oo trappings are uniformly a good idea. anyway, oo was know about, just not used. > Yes, but C macros can be used to approximate higher-level language > constructs such as objects, iterators (Java style or Ruby style, though > I'm focusing only on the latter), throw/catch clauses, and so on. s.r.bourne would agree! (c'mon smile.) i'm not convinced that throw/catch is a good idea to emulate. it's very hard to get right. goto is a like a pet bunny; throw is like a pet bunny on the loose. with t-t-teeth. i think you'll have more success with plan 9 if you don't try to pound it into a ruby-sized hole. - erik