Tom Clune writes:
> 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?
Both
> 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".
That would be a quite radical difference. I'm not going to try to
argue pro or con. (I have opinions on it, but I don't have the time
for such a discussion). I'll just note that it would be a pretty
radical difference.
--
Richard Maine
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|