From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2001-11-30T07:35:29+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:26982] Re: thoughts on virtual base classes, interfaces

In article <3c06b2ed$0$31457$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk>,
MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@post1.dknet.dk> wrote:
>
>"Phil Tomson" <ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>news:%byN7.676304$Lg.26112595@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> I want to pass around objects of a type which respond to a method called
>> 'run'.  Optionally, they might respond to a few other methods, let's call
>
>This was crossposted while I posted the article on first class functions in
>Ruby.
>The above problem is exactly what would elegantly be handled by first class
>functions. You'd just pass the run function directly instead of having to
>create an object that respond to some named function like "run". If more
>functions that run were desired, it might be better to create a class, or a
>list of functions could be passed in a hashtable.
>
>I think this shows the OOP is great, but there are other concepts that are
>also worthwile.
>

I don't think it would work in this case.  I need an object because there 
is potentially a lot of state information that needs to be passed along as 
well.  In addition, I could forsee users of the system (programmers) 
creating classes which would also have a lot of utility functions in 
addition to 'run'.

Phil