[Gambas-user] Suggestions 4 new keywords

[Fabián Flores Vadell]

2010/9/17 Doriano Blengino <doriano.blengino at ...1909...>:
> Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
>> 2010/9/16 Doriano Blengino <doriano.blengino at ...1909...>:
>>
>> Ok. Now I can understand you.
>>
>> You mistakenly thought than I meant that "INTERFACE" and
>> "IMPLEMENTATION" keywords should work as they do in Pascal. But I'm
>> don't saying that. Nothing about that there's in the example I wrote.
>>
>> There's no need to double typing.
>>
> Ok, sorry. Perhaps this is because my habits. From my experience,
> "Interface" means a declaration without any implementation (call it
> prototype, if you want), and "Implementation" means something that is
> hidden (private, if you want).

That's mean to me too. But is different the interface and
implementation of a class, that  the way wich pascal use them.

> But, now, it's your turn to
> argue/demonstrate: what languages use interface and implementation in
> the way you intend? I am always very interested in any new language I
> don't know!

I don't remember if some language does it. But that isn't the point.

> But beware: if only pascal has that two keywords, then I am
> right, and you are wrong, and by your own words! :-)

I can't understand your reasoning.

> If so, in fact, you
> wanted to use interface and implementation in their wrong meaning - the
> right keywords for you would be public and private (and protected,
> published, and so on): it's you (and I agree) that says that words are
> important...

May be you are right. But I can understand what you mean.

> This point is true, and I am wrong again. I must reformulate my thought.
> "What a user expects" is a restricted way to say "what a language should
> be". Should a language be a chameleon? If it aims to be basic (modern
> basic, but still basic), then it should not borrow too much from other
> paradigms which nothing have in common with basic. And please note I
> wrote "not borrow too much" - I don't intend to be too rigid.

Ok, I agree.

>> I never said that INTERFACE and IMPLEMENTATION concepts are exclusive
>> from OOP. But in OOP these concepts are a fundamental consequence of
>> encapsulation.
>>
> I don't understand well. But I can repeat that public and private refer
> to encapsulation (well, not really true), like interface and
> implementation. But encapsulation is not exclusive to OOP. So, I don't
> understand why interface/implementation should "be closer" to OOP. It
> seems to me like saying that "writeln" is more structured than "print"...

I think that "Interface" and "Implementation" are closer to OOP,
because OOP highly emphazises encapsulation of attributes and
behavior. And, the notion of interface and implementation of a class
is consequence of encapsulation.

>> I am not criticizing Gambas. I am proposing an alternative syntax and
>> seems that you can't understand that someone want to do that.
>>
> Again, the common language we are using does not help us. There is
> difference between "enhancing" and "correcting". You intend to enhance
> gambas. But, when a thing is "enhanced", it is better than another thing
> that is not enhanced, and that other thing can be criticized about not
> being so complete like the enhanced one. Or, put in other words: every
> time I propose a change, I am criticizing (more or less mildly). The
> only things we can *not* criticize are those which are perfect - all the
> others are imperfect, and any proposed change to them is a criticism.
>
> But anyway, don't take it bad. Call it "enhance" or "criticize", I think
> it's good for everybody. I find it a little boring a mailing list where
> the only arguments are "can't compile" and "found perhaps a bug";
> besides those necessary things, welcome to new ideas and proposals -
> everyone in this list can take advantage.

Ok, I understand you now and I agree with your concepts.

> I'd recommend anyone to use Intercal for their critical applications.

You are a joker :-P

Regards.

-- 
Fabián Flores Vadell
www.speedbooksargentina.blogspot.com