Argh!
When I printed out the draft for F2K a few weeks back most of
chapter 4 failed to make it into my bin. I should have noticed
the missing page numbers ... It figures that the most important
part of the draft (from my vantage point) would be the part I
missed.
Thanks,
- Tom
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Maine <[log in to unmask]> writes:
Richard> 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?
Richard> 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".
Richard> That would be a quite radical difference. I'm not going
Richard> to try to argue pro or con. (I have opinions on it, but
Richard> I don't have the time for such a discussion). I'll just
Richard> note that it would be a pretty radical difference.
Richard> -- Richard Maine [log in to unmask]
--
--
Thomas Clune, Ph.D. Parallel Applications Consultant
SGI [log in to unmask]
Code 931 NASA GSFC 301-286-4635 (work)
Greenbelt, MD 20771 301-286-1634 (fax)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|