Re: Re: Re:class proposal 2

Mark Hahn wrote:
> Lucius, Michael wrote:

>>>  ... It's prototype list will point to other classes
>>> giving the normal class inheritance heirarchy.
>>
>> I assume you mean the class object will have the same protoypes as the
>> instance object.

> No the instance object would have only one prototype, which is the class
> object.  Then the class object would have the references to the other
> classes.

>> This means the class object will be an extension of the same
>> prototypes as the instance object and so the class instance will not
>> have access to the instance's methods/data. Or is 'self' going to be
>> set to be the instance?

> Self will always refer to the actual instance object.

>>> ...  Access to class methods inside a
>>> normal method or inside a class definition would be through the
>>> normal "Klass.class.method()" or through new syntax sugar that makes
>>> use of the class keyword as a prefix "class.method()".
>>
>> How about the other way around? Is there a special way for class
>> methods to access 'normal' methods that are defined in the instance
>> or is this not allowed? Or must class methods access other class
>> methods in a special way?

> Now you are getting into an area that is screwed up in my proposal.  In
> Python you can say Klass.method() to access an instance method but that
> wouldn't work in my proposal, even though instance methods are attributes of
> Klass.  My weird lookup rule would screw that up.

Klass::method can be used to retrieve instance methods. It will be
equal to Klass.instance_.method

if you insist on putting instance method directly into Klass
name space then you will still the same problems as today:
1) instance vs class .call_()
2) weird behavior of .str_()
3) ability to use class as instance which some people don't want to have.


  -- Serge