Giampaolo Bottoni <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
...
>To A.J.Giles <[log in to unmask]>
>
>The TEMPLATE instruction purpose is not the replacement
>of the OOP instructions but the proposal of some new ways.
>If a function performing the rotation of the three components
>Point%x, Point%y Point%z is available, why
>I can't use that function for ALL the objects with
>the three conponents x, y and z ?
Nothing is wrong with that desire except that other, more
powerful (and convenient) language features could accomplish
the same functionality. I sse no reason to clutter up the language
with something so inflexible.
The OOP feartures can accomplish what you want, and they
will be in FMMV. It is unlikely that anyone will support a
feature which adds no new capabilities after that. Some form
of parametric polymorphism would be a better proposal,
whether the language already has OOP or not.
---
Note: I selected "reply to author", so this message is going
to the whole list. :-(
--
J. Giles
|