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 KAA02060; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:02:05 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA31191 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:02:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from cantina.students.cs.unibo.it (cantina.students.cs.unibo.it [130.136.3.110])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2N923Hd017128
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:02:03 +0100
Received: from fistandantilus.takhisis.org (cantina.students.cs.unibo.it [130.136.3.110])
	by cantina.students.cs.unibo.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1311BFFC
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:02:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: by fistandantilus.takhisis.org (Postfix, from userid 3148)
	id A1546274041; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:01:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:01:51 +0100
From: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@bononia.it>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Delegation based OO
Message-ID: <20040323090150.GA7965@fistandantilus.takhisis.org>
Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <405EBD5D.1000406@baretta.com> <20040323101402E.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040323101402E.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")!
X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Spam: no; 0.00; bononia:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 0900,:01 jacques:01 foo:01 foo:01 bononia:01 alex:01 garrigue:01 bologna:03 wrote:03 zacchiroli:03 zacchiroli:03 unibo:03 
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 324

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:14:02AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> Note however that one needs to know more clearly which methods are to
> be delegated, so I would rather favor a notation like:
> 
>  class does_more an_object = object
>     delegate does_something to an_object
>     ...
>  end

Isn't enough to have a (closed) object type annotation for "an_object"?
In this way you would now exactly the signature of the object to which
you want to delegate without having to enumerate all of them.

I find Alex idea really cool, delegation is a widely used technique in
OO programming but at the same time is painful to use because you have
to write the pattern:

  method foo = delegate#foo
  method bar = delegate#bar
  ...

Having to write

  delegate foo to delegate
  delegate bar to delegate
  ...

is not a big improvement, whereas writing

  class type delegate_type =
    object
      method foo: ...
      method bar: ...
      ...
    end

  delegate delegate_type to an_object

would really be an improvement.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners