Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index




 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28computer_programming%29
 "Classes are composed from structural and behavioral constituents."


Of course, using such a definition, even Fortran IV code consisted of
classes!


which is _exactly_ what gbuild does in the best way supportable in make.


Best way supportable? It is not hard to imagine even more
elaborate/elegant/complex way to write code using GNU Make
functions/macrosthat would make possible actual OO concepts like
inheritance and virtual functions. Like not defining functions directly but
through some meta function, and calling functions of some class through a
meta-function that would handle looking up the method in a class
inheritance hierarchy etc. No, I don't think that would be a good
idea necessarily. But surely you are suffering from some kind of bias if
you think the current situation is the best possible.



GObject also uses this vocabulary in a non-OOP language and if it wouldnt,
it
would be even harder to grok the concepts. ;)


C is a completely different language than Make macros.

--tml

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.