From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA26983; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:35:36 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA26979 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:35:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from www.invert.com (invert.com [209.164.21.15])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f6QFZY500394
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:35:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from miles@localhost)
	by www.invert.com (8.10.1/8.10.1AA) id f6QFZOa65723;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from miles)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:35:24 -0700
From: Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>
To: Dave Berry <Dave@kal.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a reckless proposal
Message-ID: <20010726083524.B65526@caddr.com>
References: <8E31D6933A2FE64F8AE3CC1381EEDCE70B2AEA@NT.kal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <8E31D6933A2FE64F8AE3CC1381EEDCE70B2AEA@NT.kal.com>; from Dave@kal.com on Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:30:09AM +0100
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:30:09AM +0100, Dave Berry wrote:
> So perhaps Ocaml should adopt the approach used in Dylan and Moby,
> where field names in class definitions have module scope.  Then
> records and objects would have similar scoping rules, instead of
> the current clash, and the distinction between modules and objects
> would be clearer.

I suppose this is also similar to CLOS generics, right?  I suppose this would be
more consistent but perhaps even more confusing to people who've been writing
ClassA.field and ClassB.field since the first day of their first Java class.

> But if you then replace the field with an accessor method, you
> have to edit all uses of that field.  It's a common recommendation
> that OO languages should only access field by accessor methods (or
> at least use the same syntax as accessor methods).  As you point
> out, Ruby does it this way.  Dylan and Eiffel are other examples.

Ocaml could observe this protocol as well.  This is valid code:

class a =
  object
    val x = 1
    method x = x
  end

let _ = new a in
  a#x

So a "macro" like attr_r could transform:

class a =
  object
   attr_r x = 1
  end

into the above class definition.

Of course, you won't be able to assign to x in the way you'd expect:

let _ = new a in
  a#x = 2

Won't work.

-- 
miles

"We in the past evade X, where X is something which we believe to be a
lion, through the act of running." - swiftrain@geocities.com
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr