Re: But is it Object-Oriented?

>>>Functional language tutorials often teach recursion and higher-order
>>>functions before records.
>>>      
>>>
>-snip-
>
>Maybe because functional languages don't have extensible records, and
>do have sum types? There's no shyness about introducing types:
>
>"The Little MLer"
>In the first 2 pages, types: integers, reals, bools, sum types and
>recursive types.
>
>So "A Little Nicer" ...
>
Great name! ;-)

>... would have an classes on page 2.
>  
>
If it follows exaclty the same pattern. Note that you can do many things 
with predefined types, so you could speak early about types, and later 
about type/class declarations.

>>Agreed. If such documentation becomes available and parts of the
>>manual become redundant, then we will be able to remove them.
>>    
>>
>
>Why not simply remove those sections from the manual and use them as
>the initial sections in a growing user guide?
>  
>
They could be used as starting points. I don't think they should be 
removed before the user guide is in a usable state, though.

>>Well, you can already write the kind of modular code that only 
>>multi-methods allow. What is missing is enforcing visibility. That
>>does not really prevent you from anything, although it does miss the
>>benefit of being sure a feature is not used out of its scope.
>>    
>>
>
>We can use Nice to make "modular" extensions to existing OO code that
>uses classes to enforce visibility and encapsulation ;-)
>  
>
Precisely.

>Seems like we need to take visibility modifiers for a test drive.
>  
>
Yes, it's in the short term plans...

Daniel



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click