NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/object/3238

Text File | 1992-08-17 | 1.7 KB | 36 lines

Newsgroups: comp.object
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!objsys
From: Bob Hathaway <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: O.M() versus M(O) notation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 03:30:19 GMT
Organization: Object Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 25

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Morgan) writes:
>   because the notation strongly influences thought processes and actually
>   constrains them (cfr. Dijkstra on BASIC), and that in particular the
>   'O.M(...)' notation by making 'O' visually special suggests that
>   overloading should happen only on the first argument, which is most
>   probably a misleading impression, as overloading resolution ought to be
>   symmetrical, which is the most "natural" thing.
>
>This issue may finally boil down to genetic predispositions and
>environment influences.  Some people just see M(O1,O2,...) as fitting
>so beautifully into their notions of mathematics, symmetry, Occam's
>razor, etc.  that no other notation makes an iota of sense.  Others
>just see O1.M(O2,...) as the high point of the new OO-think of
>encapsulation, message passing, classes, etc.  Neither group accepts
>the the other's view and compromise is out of the question.  (Oh, by
>the way, the TRUTH is that the first group is completely correct and
>the second is completely misguided.)

Ah, an old subject of interest of mine.  Why not simply examine the
underlying grammar from which these constructs came (which is imperative)
and then reevaluate them?  The true and quite natural origin from whence
they came doesn't seem to be mentioned much anymore.

bob
[e-mail]