Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ... and zen there were objects. Message-ID: <7US58MD@xds1.ferranti.com> Date: 10 Sep 90 03:52:48 GMT References: <1681.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 18 In article <1681.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes: > pushing message arguments and messages > selecting the object which is to recieve the message > sending the message > Having active message names muddles all three of those steps. No, just the first. And only if you push messages which is pretty much only if you want an "apply" operation. Pushing messages is a damn rare case, and when you do it you can use a word that returns any message it's passed (like ' does in normal Forth). > Having active objects muddles the last two and contorts cascading > and other anonymous object handling (like lists of objects). Since message arguments are likely to be objects as well, it muddles all three. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com