home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!graham
- From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
- Subject: Re: A question of notation
- Message-ID: <graham.711852416@galois>
- Sender: graham@maths.su.oz.au
- Nntp-Posting-Host: galois.maths.su.oz.au
- Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- References: <graham.711774150@galois> <MOSS.92Jul22103537@ibis.cs.umass.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:46:56 GMT
- Lines: 17
-
- (Eliot Moss) writes:
- >The difference between O.M (arg1 ... argN) and M (O, arg1 ... argN) is
- >clearly only a question of syntax, since one can readily change one
- >abstract syntax tree into the other.
-
- Not necessarily - there are small semantic differences dependant on how
- you define classes and their public aspect. For example say you
- allow a class (or object of that class) to have public methods and
- variables (read-only say). The O'M notation can handle public variables
- (just leave out the brackets), the M(O .. ) notation cannot. Now some
- people will tell you that public variables are bad news ...
-
- graham
- --
- Graham Matthews And it's true we are immune
- Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
- graham@maths.su.oz.au
-