Re: complexity of mechanism felix winkelmann (12 Apr 2006 19:39 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism Eli Barzilay (12 Apr 2006 20:54 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism felix winkelmann (13 Apr 2006 06:43 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism Eli Barzilay (13 Apr 2006 07:07 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism felix winkelmann (13 Apr 2006 08:04 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism Eli Barzilay (13 Apr 2006 08:26 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism felix winkelmann (13 Apr 2006 09:44 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism John Cowan (13 Apr 2006 11:43 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism John Cowan (13 Apr 2006 11:52 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism Eli Barzilay (13 Apr 2006 12:58 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism felix winkelmann (13 Apr 2006 13:15 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism Eli Barzilay (13 Apr 2006 13:07 UTC)
Re: complexity of mechanism feeley (13 Apr 2006 14:07 UTC)

Re: complexity of mechanism John Cowan 13 Apr 2006 11:42 UTC

felix winkelmann scripsit:

> What about:
>
> (message-box <title> <prompt> [<config-object>]) ?
>
> Configuration-objects could be composed, inherited,
> modified by accessors, whatever. I claim such an interface is
> cleaner, possibly less verbose and likely to be more efficient.

And you have the rest of the field behind you, which has long ago
abandoned zillions-of-arguments designs in favor of:

	(let ((m (make-message-box)))
	  (message-box-title-set! m <title>)
	  (message-box-prompt-set! m <prompt)
	  ...
	  (message-box-bgcolor-set! m <color>)
	  ...
	  (message-box-show m))

except less verbosely, thanks to pervasive inclusion polymorphism.

--
John Cowan    xxxxxx@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
        Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities;
        analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities.
                --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale