From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F08BB91 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:55:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBPMtplN017900 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:55:51 +0100 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 XAA27497 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:55:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iBPMtmiQ017897 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:55:49 +0100 Received: from localhost (suiren [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBPMtg6Y023207; Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:55:42 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:55:25 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20041226.075525.106353835.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: briand@aracnet.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] why aren't methods visible inside class definition From: Jacques Garrigue In-Reply-To: <16845.45096.849911.709868@soggy.deldotd.com> References: <16845.45096.849911.709868@soggy.deldotd.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.64 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41CDEFF7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41CDEFF4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 nly:98 functions:01 functions:01 jacques:01 jacques:01 garrigue:03 garrigue:03 explicit:03 accessed:05 arguments:07 definition:07 mean:07 object:09 similar:10 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: From: briand@aracnet.com > Any particular reason for this ? > > After all values are visible so why aren't methods simply treated as > values which are functions and therefore visible also. > > By visible, I mean that methods can nly be accessed using self#method_name Methods are seen as similar to records fields, so you must be explicit about the object when calling them. Also, methods may have no arguments, while functions must have at least one. Last, this distinction lets you use the same name for a field and a method. This is sometimes comfortable. Jacques Garrigue