From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Classes vs Tagged Types - Terminology
Date: 24 Mar 93 07:42:04 GMT
Date: 1993-03-24T07:42:04+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17255@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: C4AGp4.1Fw@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
In article <C4AGp4.1Fw@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
...
> CLASSes come in two flavours:
> Without INHERITANCE
> With INHERITANCE
...
> It is generally agreed that you need INHERITANCE to do any serious
> "Object Oriented Programming".
Where have you _been_, mate? There are quite a few OO languages
based on delegation rather than inheritance. There are good arguments
each way, and the issue is far from settled. The "Actor" model is
based on delegation. SELF is based on delegation, and is available
free. Several concurrent object-oriented languages are based on
delegation. (Delegation is where an object that elects not to handle
a method call directly hands it off to another object, not to itself
viewed as belonging to another type.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1993-03-24 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1993-03-22 11:46 Classes vs Tagged Types - Terminology Charles Lindsey
1993-03-24 7:42 ` Richard A. O'Keefe [this message]
1993-03-25 15:56 ` Tucker Taft
1993-03-26 11:02 ` Stephen J Bevan
1993-03-30 14:34 ` Tucker Taft
1993-03-31 16:21 ` Stephen J Bevan
1993-03-31 20:46 ` Robert I. Eachus
1993-03-24 8:58 ` Robb Nebbe
1993-03-25 0:15 ` David Emery
1993-03-29 9:26 ` Robb Nebbe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-04-05 15:54 John Goodsen
1993-04-05 23:04 ` Mark A Biggar
1993-04-06 16:36 Harry Koehnemann
1993-04-06 16:46 mcsun!julienas!newsserver!geant!bruniau
1993-04-07 13:49 pipex!uknet!warwick!zaphod.crihan.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!scsing.switch.ch!sicsu
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox