Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Object-oriented Forth
Message-ID: <1684.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 7 Sep 90 01:26:29 GMT
References: <12070@ists.ists.ca>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 21

In <12070@ists.ists.ca>, peterc@gkcl.ists.ca (Peter Camilleri) writes:
> In the same manner as Smalltalk, I feel that classes should be objects.
> They would be responsable for creating new objects, hold class wide data,
> and performing other "objectless" processing. The classes would be
> instances of the class MetaClass, which would be pre-existing. In the
> spirit of FORTH, MetaClass could be subclassed to allow new classes to
> be created in different ways. (Not too unlike a defining defining word)

Also allows for POOL variables, but how useful that feature is, I'm not
sure.  The biggest win for having classes as objects is that one can
then create new objects by sending messages AND customize those messages
to suit the class of the object being created (i.e. all object creation
messages do not have to be the same).

-Doug

-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]