home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!sol.deakin.OZ.AU!news.cs.uow.edu.au!cs.uow.edu.au!humm
- From: humm@cs.uow.edu.au (Bernhard G Humm)
- Subject: get/set behaviour (was: >>Voluntary method typing)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan27.001832.10017@cs.uow.edu.au>
- Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:18:32 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
-
- hasko@heeg.de writes:
-
- In article <1993Jan25.070651.2105@cs.uow.edu.au> humm@cs.uow.edu.au (Bernhard G >Humm) writes:
- >>>>Of course, this only applies to database-type objects which just have
- >>>>get/set behaviour, but this seems quite a significant subset.
- >>
- >>Are there really any other cases in a pure OO language?
- >
- >Are there really _such_ cases in a pure OO project?
-
- In Smalltalk, objects have named or indexed instance variables. They can be
- assigned references to other objects and the values of those variables
- represent the internal state of the object (only simple types like numbers
- or characters don't have instance variables and still have values; probably
- they had better been separated from objects like e.g. in Eiffel). The only
- way you can change the internal state of an object is assigning another value
- to one of its variables. Reading the value of such a variable gives you the
- reference to another object which allows you to do the same things (assign
- variables or read them). Now you tell me the difference between ``database-type
- objects'' and Smalltalk objects...
-
- --
- ________________________________________________________
- Bernhard G. Humm (humm@cs.uow.edu.au)
- Telecommunications Software Research Centre
- Department of Computer Science, University of Wollongong
-