Re: Did I miss something about structures and function handles

[kensmith]

On Saturday 18 August 2007 18:38, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 18/08/07, James Sherman Jr. <address@hidden> wrote:
> > But I don't have a good grasp of what OOP really and truly means,
> > so the 90% of OOP comment by kensmith confuses me.
>
> Polymorphism. This is the essence of OOP, and often not emphasised
> enough.

I would characterize polymorphism as "a main advantage" or as "the main 
feature" but not as the essence.  I have written OO programs that 
didn't use it.  This may seem strange at first but for some problems 
the OO way of thinking simply works better.


> As kensmith suggests, the "this" pointer in C++ is one way to get
> polymorphism working. I can't follow the discussion exactly, but if
> indeed Octave has something like C++'s "this" pointer, then we may be
> well on the route to having OOP in Octave.
>
> Of course, having Matlab-compatible OOP is probably still quite a
> different matter.

Imagine that the "this" was "$$$$".  I'm fairly sure that $$$$ isn't a 
MatLab symbol.  All MatLab code could still run in octave.  Some octave 
could wouldn't run in MatLab.  At least it wouldn't until they added 
the $$$$ because it is such a great idea.


>
> - Jordi G. H.

-- 
address@hidden