Kevin Kenny wrote:

>  The TIP 257 prose needs significant rework - to propose TclOO
>  as a thing in itself rather than by comparison with XOtcl.
>  But the implementation stands on its own merits. Yes, it lacks
>  the features of ITcl and XOtcl - but that's what I want.
>  Tcl's advantage has always been minimalism; we can always
>  add features, but taking them out is a real challenge.
>  It certainly provides enough to do useful work with it.
>  For example, I have a reference implementation of TIP 308
>  that is well along.
>  
>  TIP 257 isn't perfect, but I do not see another feasible
>  path forward. There isn't another proposal on the table that
>  can be ready in the next release cycle. 

Another (my current) aside opinion:

Leave Tcl as it is, without OO in the core. There is no value in adding something to the cor
e that exists in many extensions for ages now. People have found their way over the years wi
th one of the extension.

Instead add lexical scoping and closures to Tcl. These are features that can not be provided
 by extensions - But once they are available, you have OO implicitely and can create your ow
n OO in a few hours. This would be more powerful and "future-defining" for the language.
Consider Scheme: it has NO builtin OO system, but is doing quite well in terms of popularity
.

Just my 2c...


-- 
Eckhard


-- 
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl-Core@[...].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core