That the approach I m thinking about now.
But this way (including one object into one other) constraints you to have
additional interface functions?
Ok I know my question is not clear ;-) let's illustrate it with an example:
class A{ void fun do_stuff() { /* do stuff ....*/ } }
If I want to have the same do_stuff functionality in another class, if I
extend it, I have nothing to do.
class B extends A {} // B Will automatically have the do_stuff
functionality
But if I include it, I have to do:
class B { A a; // sort of include
fun void do_stuff() {a.do_stuff();} /// This is the
additional interface I told about in my question
}
Then I will be able to do:
B b;
b.do_stuff();
Ok it s just one line of code in this example but it can be much more if
you have several functions and several class extensions.
If you feel I am lazy its true ;-) That's why I like to program, I make the
machines work for me!
Ju
2012/10/5 Kassen
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:59:16PM +0200, Julien Saint-Martin wrote:
Hi Kassen,
Ok, thank you for your response. No problem, you don't have to be sorry. I survived ten years programming without objects so I will find an other solution ;-)
Personally I never felt the need to extend multiple things at once, to be honest, I tend more towards having one big object include several smaller ones. I could see how it could save on the copy-pasting and keeping track of where you copy-pasted when you edit one case.
Oh, well... Kas. _______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users