home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.object:3386 comp.lang.clos:769
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.clos
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Xenon.Stanford.EDU!hoelzle
- From: hoelzle@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Urs Hoelzle)
- Subject: Re: Implementation Question
- Message-ID: <hoelzle.715461389@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
- Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
- References: <graham.715435125@galois> <182ra0INN33d@early-bird.think.com>
- Date: 2 Sep 92 19:16:29 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
-
- >In article <graham.715435125@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
- >>Now my problem is as follows. How do OO implentations handle the
- >>space allocation for an instance of class B? Does an instance of B
- >>have to have space allocated for all the instance variables in B as
- >>well as all the instance variables in all the classes of which B is
- >>a sub-class (in this case class A). I ask this for three reasons :-
-
- >This is the distinction between inheriting behavior and structure. Most OO
- >languages use the same mechanism for both, thus making it tricky to do what
- >you want.
-
- Exactly. And I can't resist mentioning that Self does The Right Thing (TM)
- - with the nice side effect that no code ever depends on the format
- of an object (i.e. whether is has an x instance variable or an x
- method).
-
- -Urs
-
- [Adv: For more details on Self, get selfPower.ps.Z and organizing.ps.Z
- from self.stanford.edu:/pub/papers]
-
-