home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!edcastle!dcs.ed.ac.uk!pdc
- From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Subject: Re: objects and closures
- Message-ID: <Bx8zy5.4n5@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 5 Nov 92 14:51:40 GMT
- References: <1992Oct27.205320.13271@twg.com> <9210302223.AA11001@cs.columbia.edu> <720756315@sheol.UUCP> <Bx5DFt.7z3@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <BEVAN.92Nov3182229@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk> <720937337@sheol.UUCP>
- Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
- Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
- Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <720937337@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
- >Well, pursue the analogy. While is a control flow construct you can
- >keep track of in your head. Why would anybody having a full set of
- >sensible control flow constructs want unrestricted goto?
- [you sometimes want goto]
-
- I think I'd pretty well always rather use another mechanism which I can
- keep in my head. I've found that avoiding goto usually gives me less
- brittle software and a better understanding of the problem and how to
- solve it. I think that behind every use of a closure is an object
- that's hiding, and I suspect that by trying to bang your round problem
- into the square OO paradigm you'll end up with something more like real
- software that people will extend and reuse and write user interfaces to.
-
- I also think I should use "I think" less often and find out what I'm
- talking about...
- __ ____
- \/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \ /
- /\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul" \/
-