From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@...>
Date: 2005-10-21T18:26:59+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Cut-based AOP

Trans wrote:
> Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
> 
>>+1
>>
>>I only have one concern: I think the syntax is kinda weird. It resembles
>>the class definition syntax, but I can't see why it should. When you
>>write "class A < B" you're saying "class A inherits from class B" or
>>"class A is affected by class B". If we apply the same to "cut A < B",
>>it would be "cut A is affected by class B", which isn't the case. Why
>>not use "cut A > B", "cut A affects class C". The singleton syntax could
>>be like this "cut >> obj".
> 
> 
> Your .16 Yen is appreciated :) In fact we have discussed similar
> notation:
> 
>   class A > Ac
>     # advice
>   end
> 
> We decided against, mainly because it looks too much like normal
> subclassing. though it is certaintly a possibility.
> 
> How I say 'cut Ac < A' is "cut Ac cuts A.", though I normally drop the
> first 'cut', "Ac cuts A".
> 
> T.
> 

I just don't think the lesser than character should be used when it 
already has a certain meaning. I think the cut keyword is a good idea, 
but the < should be a >. Again, that's just my opinion ;)

   cut A > B; end
   cut >> obj; end


Cheers,
Daniel