On 2006年4月23日 12:28:32 +0300 Asko Kauppi <askok@dnainternet.net> wrote: > I am still puzzled by this area, after 4 years with Lua (I know how > the things work, but would like to have a "require 'classes'" kind > of approach, One Size Classes for those just wanting to get basic > inheritance etc. without paying much attention to how it's done. Am > I alone? :) I totally agree here. From time to time, discussions arise on the Lua list about one or another class implementation -- and it always looks like everyone is crafting his/her own class system (I even made more than one implementation, just for testing!). I strongly believe that having a "standard" class system would greatly improve reuse and interoperability of Lua code. I think it also would/should encourage a consistent way of making object-oriented bindings of non-Lua code. But the task of designing such a thing is not effortless if we take into account one of the principles of Lua: give mechanisms, not policy. Like the new module system introduced with Lua 5.1 (which I find great) the "standard" implementation for classes would need to impose some policy -- but the gains can be more than the (possible) loss of coding freedom. Just my 2 cents ;-) -- Adrian Perez "Experience is what you gen when you don't get what you want" -- (Dan Stanford) -- Adrian Perez "Experience is what you gen when you don't get what you want" -- (Dan Stanford)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature