Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsm!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Generic Object Oriented Libraries
Message-ID: <4800012@uiucdcsm>
Date: 28 Jan 88 06:01:00 GMT
References: <455@anuck.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:anuck.UUCP:455:uiucdcsm:4800012:000:786
Nf-From: uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu!grunwald    Jan 28 00:01:00 1988


Can we gripe about OOPS in here? I'd like some general feedback from others
who use OOPS.

1) I think that the OOPS names should be more long-winded for internal
   functions. I'm mainly thinking of 'release'.

   I've got a set of routines for OOPS/Extentions for a Discrete Event
   Simulation Evenvironment (OOPS/EDASE), and 'release' as a very different
   meaning in simulation programs.

   'releaseInternalObjects' might be better.

2) There's too much of a tie-in to the provided 'process' notion -- it should
   be possible to not have the Exception stuff loaded. I'm using a thread
   notation which is cheaper than the process notation, primarily because
   it's designed for DAS, where I don't use any exceptions.


Am I off base with this?

dirk grunwald
univ. of illinois