Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ... and zen there were objects. Message-ID: <1679.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 7 Sep 90 00:35:58 GMT References: Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips. (in Pgh, PA) Lines: 17 In , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Whether you use an explicit SEND or not, the point comes up as to whether > an object or a message should be passive (on the stack) or active (or at > the top of the stack). I would like to suggest that the thing on the top > of the stack be something that is not going to undergo further manipulation. > That is, it should be a verb rather than a noun. I think I see a point of potential confusion here. In cascading one is not sending multiple messages "to the same object". One is sending successive messages to the objects which are returned by the preceeding message(s). I think I was unclear about pointing that out. -Doug --- Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us OR ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp ) Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]