Re: OOP in Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg29154] Re: OOP in Mathematica
- From: "Orestis Vantzos" <atelesforos at hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:15:20 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: National Technical University of Athens, Greece
- References: <b3AP6.274$y25.1892@ralph.vnet.net> <9f2g4c$878$1@smc.vnet.net> <9f4euh$ab2$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
That's exactly why normal OOP philosophy can't work in Mathematica...methods and instance variables (in Maeder's terminology) can not be clearly distinguished. One would rather associate a number of symbols with an objects and allow the user to define their functionality. Orestis "John Doty" <jpd at w-d.org> wrote in message news:9f4euh$ab2$1 at smc.vnet.net... > In article <9f2g4c$878$1 at smc.vnet.net>, "Jens-Peer Kuska" > <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: > > > The head *is* the function call! > > No, the head is just the head. If a particular head is associated with > replacement rules that work like a function, you might want to call that > head a "function". On the other hand, you can invert function and argument > if you wish: > > In[33]:= x_[sin]^:=Sin[x] > > In[34]:= Pi[sin] > > Out[34]= 0 > > To be sure, most rules mimic function evaluation and/or sequential flow of > control. This makes Mathematica look more like a "normal" programming > language than it really is. It's really just a convention: Mathematica can > also define bizarre rules like the ones above. > > -- > | John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job." > | Home: jpd at w-d.org > | Work: jpd at space.mit.edu >