Tom Clune wrote:
>
> Several responders have suggested preserving the F2K syntax, and
> I'm certainly going to keep that in mind. I've only skimmed the F2K
> draft thus far, but it is not clear to me just how much of the OO
> functionality it actually provides. To "extended" objects inherit
> methods from the parent object, or just the components? On a more
> fundamental level, the F2K standard leaves modules and derived types
> relatively decoupled, whereas my idea was to force OO design by
> strongly coupling modules and derived types via "classes". Using
> something closer to C++ syntax has the additional benefit of making
> the code more accessible to the computer science types who will be
> designing the framework.
>
I think the F2k standard actually had something called a "class" -
I'll look at it. Dunno if a module can have several classes (
equivalent to a package?)
Alvaro Fernandez
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|