Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Programming Pardigms (Re: const, reference "this" revisited ???)
Message-ID: <10118@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 27 Feb 88 21:39:30 GMT
References: <6590014@hplsla.HP.COM> <6590018@hplsla.HP.COM> <23134@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 28

In article <23134@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> serge@berkeley.edu (serge) writes:

>	This issue (and others) could be addressed if the method
>definition/invocation syntax was
>
>		method(x, y, z ...);
>
>instead of
>		x.method(y, z ...);
>

It already exists in C++.  It's called overloaded functions.  It is
one of the strengths of C++ that it supports other programming
paradigms  than "objected oriented".  The principles which determine
whether a particular operation ought to be a member or a global
function have not been well articulated yet.  As people gather
experience with C++ I hope a consensus will emerege.

What really is on my mind is that I have gotten frustrated by the
assumption that people seem to make frequently in this group that C++
is "Object Oriented C".  C++ does have inheritance (which is what
distinguishes "Object Oriented" from other approaches) but it also
has features such as overloading, casting operators
constructors/destructors that support other paradigms.  C++ without
inheritance would certainly be less useful, but it would still be a
significant extension of C.

Jerry Schwarz