Re: [RFC] Methods and functions

[Egeyar Bagcioglu]

Hi Jose,

First of all, this is a very well written explanation, comparison and 
discussion. Thanks.

> BUT, I am considering the following: what about introducing explicit
> methods separated from functions.

[snip]

> My current opinion is that it would complicate the language, for little
> benefit: after all, it costs nothing to have prime_p defined outside of
> the struct type:
>
>    defun prime_p = (int n) int: { ... }
>
>    deftype Foo =
>      struct
>      {
>        int f1 : prime_p (f1);
>        int f2;
>
>        defun frob = void: { ... }
>      };
>
> So I don't plan to implement support for both regular functions and
> methods inside struct types.  I think the current approach is simple,
> intuitive, and predictable, given the user has access to some decent
> documentation.
>
> But I am very interested in feedback.
> What do you think? :)

I believe you are right that a function defined within a struct has 
nothing over an external function. In fact, that's exactly why we are 
referring to them as functions. I would also be against such complexity 
for the tiny benefit of hiding the function within the struct.

I do have one tiny consideration, that you did not ask for, if I may. I 
understand that the support for methods is very similar to that of 
functions, so much that defun can be extended for the sake of 
simplicity. Simplicity for a poke developer... However, after reading 
your detailed email, I am convinced that methods and functions are 
indeed different entities for a Poke writer (mind the capital letter). 
Not all of them will be lucky enough to read this email of yours before 
stumbling upon behavioral differences between the "functions" they 
define. It seems to me that it would be quite easy to adjust the parser 
to accept defmeth, or something as such, in a struct, rather than defun. 
Then, defmeth could be defined as a single defun to use your current 
implementation. That would be only to enforce the awareness of the 
differences between functions and methods on the folks who are writing 
them. Have you considered using a different keyword for methods? If you 
are against that, can you share your reasoning so that I can learn from it?

Regards
Ege