<HEAD><TITLE>discuss@charon: [171] in "Coldmud discussion meeting"</TITLE>
<H1>[171] in Coldmud discussion meeting</H1></HEAD>
<A HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i-d.gif" ALT="root"></A>
<A HREF="?171"><IMG SRC="/i-back.gif" ALT="meeting"></A>
<A HREF="/help.html"><IMG SRC="/i-help.gif" ALT="help"></A>
<A HREF="1"><IMG SRC="/i-first.gif" ALT="first"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-fref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-pref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="170"><IMG SRC="/i-prev.gif" ALT="previous"></A>
<A HREF="172"><IMG SRC="/i-next.gif" ALT="next"></A>
<IMG SRC="/n-nref.gif" ALT="">
<IMG SRC="/n-lref.gif" ALT="">
<A HREF="1641"><IMG SRC="/i-last.gif" ALT="last"></A>
<HR><H2>encapsulation and stuff</H2>
<H3>daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri Mar 25 19:55:09 1994
)</H3>
<PRE>
From: stewarta@netcom.com (Alex Stewart)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 16:53:29 -0800 (PST)

&gt; Well, i was actually suggesting a core modification, as opposed to a server
&gt; modification, sorry if you dont want to talk about core issues here...

oh, that's fine, it just wasn't obvious you were talking about an in-DB
implementation.  However, I'm not sure why that naming/operation convention is
much better or worse than the convention we have already (methods that return
variables typically have the name of the variable, and methods that set them
are named "set_" plus the name of the variable)..  It actually seems to me it'd
be better to keep setting and getting operations in separate methods, since
they really are separate things.  Having different method names for getting and
setting also reduces potential confusion, and allows for better automatic
argument checking..

&gt; Also, I thought one of the points of encapsulation was to abstract
&gt; the assignment of variables, so that instead of doing x = 1 you do x(1)

This is really what Greg means about database-OO versus language-OO..  What
you're describing here is what OO language constructs are all about, which, for
the most part, Coldmud doesn't have, because it's based primarily on C, rather
than an object-oriented language.

&gt; I seem to be missing the point of encapsulation, I thought it was to provide
&gt; a control as to how the data was accessed, not limit the access of the data
&gt; to the object.

No, this is exactly the point of encapsulation, and this is why automatic
access to an object's parameters is not a good thing, because it doesn't allow
the object to control whether they should be publicly accessible or not, or how
they should be accessed.  Basically, in languages such as C++, public and
protected class members are really a hack, sacrificing encapsulation for speed.
Since Coldmud attempts to create a much more pure form of object-orientation,
and speed isn't as much of an issue in it as in application development, all of
its parameters are "private", allowing for maximum flexibility in controlling
how they're accessed.

Now, relating to the language-OO vs. DB-OO issue is something that I've been
thinking about asking Greg to implement for a while in Coldmud, and since he
appears to be back in the land of the living (at least more than he was),  I'll
ask now..

Much as I hate the concept of operator overloading, a simple form of it could
be immensely useful in Coldmud and lead to a more OO-based language, as well.
What I'd like to see is simply a set of built-in method names that the system
would try to call if one tried to use various assignment ('=') or comparison
('==', '&lt;', etc) operators on a frob value.  This, among other things, would
allow frobs to be used as user-defined data types a lot more efficiently and
robustly.

There is one problem with this, since the frobs wouldn't normally be accessed
explicitly in code (they'd usually be in variables of some sort), the
operator-overriding wouldn't really be on the frobs themselves, but would have
to function on any variable that had a particular frob as its value.  Since C--
is a typeless language, if this were just implemented by itself, one might get
situations where a variable worked as normal until it got set to the value of a
certain frob that overrode the assignment operator, and from then on, worked
differently (there being no way to change it to have a non-frob value).  This
is obviously not a good thing (although it poses interesting issues in the way
of data-viruses and the separation of data and code).  I'm not sure how this
should be dealt with, but it seems like it shouldn't be that great a problem to
fix, especially considering the potential benefits.

Sigh.. that probably made no sense..  Lemme know if I should try to explain it
all again..  basically I'd just like to turn frobs into more of a
programmer-defined datatype by allowing operator overriding on them.

-Riche

</PRE>
