From: MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@...1.dknet.dk>
Date: 2001-11-30T07:55:34+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:26990] Re: thoughts on virtual base classes, interfaces


"Phil Tomson" <ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:iyyN7.676652$Lg.26137488@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> In article <3c06b2ed$0$31457$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk>,
> MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@post1.dknet.dk> wrote:


> 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.

If you read my posting more carefully, you'll notice that I discuss both
mathematical functions and methods that have access to state.
You might have one class with a run message and verious member variables.
And then you have another class with a go message.
You could then abitrarily pass the "run" or the "go" method as parameter,
and the implicit "self" parameter would follow. That is difference between
functions and messages.
BTW: I know there is a syntactical issue with avoiding evaluating a function
or message when passing it as an argument.

 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'.

I'm saying it is good in all instances. If it were, we didn't need classes.

MikkelFJ