Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: "justinhj" <justinhj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Jan 2007 06:41:41 -0800
On Jan 26, 9:03 am, "Rob Thorpe" <rtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:17 am, Andrew Reilly
Rentsch's words above, but I was taught exactly the reverse. When I
first read about OO programming the books said that the idea was to
completely remove interfaces that depended on data-structures. The
idea was that every bit of information was returned by some method or
other and that only the methods of an object need know the contents of
the fields.
The idea is more that the data structures will still exist, it's just
that having an interface removes the dependency on specific fields
being present and having specific values used in specific ways.
I don't think you can have meaningful object oriented programming with
objects, objects being essentially sets of fields.
Justin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: mark.hoemmen@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- References:
- LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: getsanjay . sharma
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: ricky.clarkson@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: getsanjay . sharma
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: Matthias Benkard
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: getsanjay . sharma
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: Alex Mizrahi
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: getsanjay . sharma
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: Rob Thorpe
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: Andrew Reilly
- Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- From: Rob Thorpe
- LISP Object Oriented ?
- Prev by Date: Is there any eq t test in Common Lisp?
- Next by Date: Re: Tick tack (old age attack)
- Previous by thread: Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- Next by thread: Re: LISP Object Oriented ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|