Re: But is it Object-Oriented?

Isaac Gouy wrote:

>>BTW, Java is specified roughly in the same way, and uses the name 
>>"compilation units" for "modules".
>>    
>>
>
>And the significant difference is, of course, that Java doesn't use a
>"compilation unit" for encapsulation - Java uses types (classes and
>interfaces) for encapsulation.
>  
>
Right, but since you are supposed to have only one top-level class per 
compilation unit, the difference is somewhat blur.

>And as a consequence, we can take code unchanged from different Java
>compilation units, and put it in a single compilation unit without
>changing meaning.
>  
>
If you mean copying one class into another compilation unit, you are not 
supposed to do that. I think it's plainly an error for a public class, 
and it will confuse the Java compiler for a 'package' class.

>If we try to do that with the current proposal then we'll see "private"
>things become visible where they weren't before.
>  
>
Yes, but that might be the reason why you decide to move code from one 
place to another: so that you regroup those that belong together in the 
same place, where they can freely interact and be hidden from the rest 
of the package.

I think I see what you mean, though. You might want different levels of 
'privateness'. That could be handled by nested units. But I think maybe 
we could leave that for a later stage, don't you think?

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