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 <signal.automatique@gmail.com>

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