Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #39557

Re: Extendable structure with inspection

Show all headers | View raw

on 04/06/2015 12:43:03, Raimond Dragomir wrote:
> joi, 4 iunie 2015, 11:11:20 UTC+3, Alex McDonald a scris:
>> on 04/06/2015 04:54:11, Raimond Dragomir wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What did you accomplished? You still need the structure name (not the
>> > object name) to associate the following field with it.
>> > You need to do this: Ob POS X
>> > A much cleaner and simpler way is just to prefix the field names with
>> > the structure name! For example: Ob POS.X or Ob POS->X or anything you
>> > like.
>> >
>> > I would have been impressed if you was able to do that:
>> > Ob X
>> >
>> > This was the real discussion in some other thread: associate the field
>> > of the structure with the object!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> OBJECT POS X suggests that OBJECT really isn't an object at all; it's an
>> area of memory over which the structure POS is being applied to get the
>> variable at offset X. I'm not quite sure whay you would want OBJECT X in
>> such a case. For most uses, defining and knowing the offset of X is
>> rather pointless since the class (and any objects derived from it)
>> encapsulates the variable. Althought there are similarities, structures
>> and classes are not necessarily the same, and classes may not always be
>> supersets of structures.
> 
> I never mentioned classes. Only (simple) structures. I name "object"
> an entity wich is materialized in memory in some quantity. A variable
> is an object. An address or an offset isn't an object. So, a structure
> is a "type" which defines some offsets, that's all.

Hmmmm.

> But it's against the Forth philosophy to declare "types" or worse, to
> bind "types" to objects. That's why in forth variables provide their
> address, and in fact everything provides their address. That's why we
> have explicit @, !, etc.
> VALUE and frieds are against Forth philosophy.
> I admit that in my dialect I use TO to local variables (only) but my '
> (tick) is able to provide the address of a local, so I can @, c@, !
> etc even on locals.
> 
> 

I'd rather see you argue why you have this opinion, based on some
experience. Packaging your opinion as "Forth philosophy" doesn't really
help.

      

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Extendable structure with inspection humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 13:29 -0700
  Re: Extendable structure with inspection anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-03 06:02 +0000
    Re: Extendable structure with inspection humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 08:27 -0700
  Re: Extendable structure with inspection humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 11:30 -0700
    Re: Extendable structure with inspection Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 20:54 -0700
      Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-04 09:11 +0100
        Re: Extendable structure with inspection Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 04:43 -0700
          Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-04 20:21 +0100
            Re: Extendable structure with inspection Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-04 23:23 -0700
              Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-05 03:40 -0400
              Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-05 15:31 +0100
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 08:48 -0700
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-05 18:10 +0100
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-06 10:46 +0000
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-05 17:53 -0700
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-06 10:56 +0000
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-06 16:00 +0000
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-06 19:35 -0700
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-07 10:51 +0100
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-08 23:24 +0200
                SIZE RfD: Re: Extendable structure with inspection anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-09 07:56 +0000
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-09 12:09 +0100
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-09 23:25 +0200
              Re: Extendable structure with inspection "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-05 07:53 -1000
                Re: Extendable structure with inspection hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-05 17:34 -0700
      Re: Extendable structure with inspection humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 00:40 -0700
  Re: Extendable structure with inspection humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 12:16 -0700

csiph-web