Re: Trouble translating a C++ data-structure.

[Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>]

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:
> This Wikipedia article on aspect weavers is more lucid than the AOP
> article.

Nice, I hadn't looked at the aspect weaver article before.  Yes it's
much more readable than the AOP article.

Do you actually use AOP?  Does Ada have it?  It comes across to me as a
glorified version of monkey patching (like in Ruby), but I haven't tried
it.  The wiki article also explicitly cites "advice", an Interlisp
feature that always seemed chaotic to me even as a Lisp aficionado,
and Lisp is as bazaar as it gets :).

OTOH I've seen claims that Haskell's monadic bind operation is something
like aspect weaving.  I can see some similarity but I don't have a sense
of how deep it is.

> Read all of Mary Shaw's work on Alphard from the 1970s.  It approaches
> the problem-space that AOP tries to solve from an entirely different
> perspective (which the INRIA OCaml community also pursue differently
> decades later): little languages.

Do you have a URL?  The Wikipedia article about Alphard isn't very
informative.  I don't see how the "little language" approach handles the
issue of cross-cutting that AOP purports to solve.

Thanks!