Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!shelby!portia!dchapman From: dchapman@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Chapman) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: "Sender" construct in OOLs Message-ID: <5548@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 5 Oct 89 05:04:26 GMT References: Sender: David Chapman Reply-To: dchapman@Portia.Stanford.EDU (David Chapman) Distribution: comp.object Organization: Stanford University Lines: 17 In article time@oxtrap.UUCP writes: >Does anyone know of a specific OOL implementation of SENDER? >Any good reasons why it should not be included? I can think of only one reason that _some_ languages wouldn't be able to support a "sender" construct: the sender might not be an object at all. I don't know anything about Object Pascal, but in C++ the sender might be a function instead of another object. Mutual recursion between objects sounds kind of obscure (I use it only in compilers). If it's not going to be used often, a language developer isn't going to want to support it. It's also difficult to add new keywords to existing languages because you invalidate any existing code that happened to use that keyword as an identifier. Can you tell us more about what you were trying to do? Is this something that everyone would want to use?