PDL OO thoughts and Prima OO<br> <br> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Ed . <<a href=3D"mailto:ej_zg@hotmail.c= om" target=3D"_blank">ej_zg@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Looks a lot like reimplementing C++!<br> </blockquote> <br> Except the goal is a clean OO framework, that is<br> implemented in C for portability and supports the key<br> modern OO features of Moo rather than C++.<br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> My reading of Chris's link is that "roles" provides the same<= br> as "interfaces" except you can also treat an existing "class= "<br> as an "interface". To reiterate my previous question (and the<br> answer may well be yes): putting aside that "roles" are a<br> neat recent OO innovation: do they actually add anything<br> that PDL3 *needs*, that interfaces can't?<br> </blockquote> <br> I'm not a Java programmer but you can google more<br> discussion and docs on the difference between interfaces<br> and Moo[se] roles in perl. =C2=A0As for PDL3 needs, I think there<br> is value in having the C-OO PDL layer be compatible or<br> equivalent to Moo. It could simplify handing off processing<br> between the perl layer and the C-OO layer.<br> <br> However, if you can show that all the goals for PDL3 could<br> be done only using interfaces that could be useful data in<br> planning the development effort. =C2=A0Is there a specific reason<br> that you prefer interfaces to roles?<br> <br> --Chris<br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> -----Original Message----- From: Chris Marshall<br>
2014-06-13 08:40:21 UTC
unknown