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)
|
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