Re: Taming constructors?
Norman Hardy <norm-vN3M59HtaNxWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.capabilities.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I certainly think so. I began to implement the factory in Scheme and was reminded that Scheme lacks efficient synergy or any primitive to build it. http://cap-lore.com/Languages/Scheme/Synergy.html Some languages accidentally build it in, such as C++, OCaml, Smalltalk as part of their class structures. The original 1973 paper by Moriss suggests a simple sealer-unsealed primitive which I have not seen adopted in any wide spread language. Jonathan Rees has a variant of Scheme with efficient synergy. On 2014 May 6, at 18:55 , David Nicol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Reid <kpreid-M/[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that this is not a useful pattern in a capability language > > the "factory pattern" is how one does constructors in a capability language, no? > > > > > -- > > "you are browsing from crawler0-complaints-to-admin.webresearch.pa-x.dec.com on the webresearch.pa-x.dec.com network."-- 1998 snapshot of dynamic page at archive.com > _______________________________________________ > cap-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk _______________________________________________ cap-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk