Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner"
From: Thomas A. Li (tli_at_corporola.com)
Date: 12/31/03
- Next message: Howard Brazee: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Previous message: Howard Brazee: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Next in thread: Judson McClendon: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:46:05 GMT
Then an object has tons of INVOKEs as we like with different parameters;
Or one INVOKE for everything without type checking.
"Peter E.C. Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3ff1f5d4_3@news.athenanews.com...
>
> "Thomas A. Li" <tli@corporola.com> wrote in message
> news:MogIb.218512$ea%.76369@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > I would prefer using
> >
> >
>
specific-object-reference.specific-method-name(various-parameter-by-CONTENT/
> > REFERENCE/VALUE)
> >
> > where dot are used as in Java and C++. There is no need to use verb
INVOKE
> > because it is self-evident from use of parenthesis and it is faster to
> type
> > in code.
> >
> > If INVOKE is used, which object does it belong to?
> >
>
> It "belongs" to the object referenced by the Object Reference quoted in
the
> INVOKE.
>
> e.g. invoke objMyInstance "DoEverything" ....
>
> ...where objMyInstance is an Object Reference (previously instantiated)
for
> a given object. You could have any number of these and reference the
Methods
> of the object separately via different Object References...or not.
>
> Pete.
>
>
>
- Next message: Howard Brazee: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Previous message: Howard Brazee: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Next in thread: Judson McClendon: "Re: Confessions of an "OO Foreigner""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|