realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Constructors for Modules

To: REALbasic Network Users Group <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Constructors for Modules
From: Charles Yeomans <yeomans at desuetude dot com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:37:19 -0400

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Thomas Reed wrote:

Given that modules are not objects but are still logical holders of global
methods and properties, is it technically possible to add
constructor/destructor functionality to initialize properties?

Sure, it's possible. But why? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a class for this sort of thing? Seems to me like you're saying "My nails don't seem to be compatible with a screwdriver -- can we add a slot in the top of the nail and put threads on the shaft of the nail?" Why bother, just go get a screw. Use the right tool for the job.

It looks like a good way to implement singleton classes in Rb in situations where inheritance isn't needed.

Charles Yeomans


---
A searchable archive of this list is available at:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/search.php>

Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listmanager/>
.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>