Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: fir Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: theorethical thought on tree structure, fields, tags and so called tag system (oryginal) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 16:47:36 +0200 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <117bbbb6a2baef294a5f8f489eddb9e5bf1f06fe@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:47:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3853169"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="+ydHcGjgSeBt3Wz3WTfKefUptpAWaXduqfw5xdfsuS0"; User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5471 Lines: 208 fir wrote: > fir wrote: >> [i added teh tag oryginal - as in fact most of what i write aroound c >> language theory are oryginal thoughts, not something that i just read or >> seen somewhere - to be clear) >> >> i thought a bot on things like that >> >> some { >> >> void a() {} >> void b() {} >> } >> >> some2 { >> >> void a() {} >> void b() {} >> } >> >> and soem obserwation is its probably more convenient to >> write >> >> void some.a() {} >> void some.b() {} >> void some2.a() {} >> void some2.b() {} >> >> wchich my be seen as critique of this module {} convention >> (where opening s far to closing >> >> then you can call foo(some) or foo(some2) for some advantage >> >> but if so this convention will probably build a tree >> structure over the fields and i once noticed tree >> structure is not best for some things (liek in need >> for soem things people calls polymorphism) >> >> it seems something i call 'tags' is better - it is >> situation ehen given thing has more than one parent >> but im not sure how to 'bite' this >> >> say soem example >> >> car.wheels >> car.doors >> car.engine >> car.move() >> >> boat.engine >> boat.turbine >> boat.move() >> >> car is vehicle, and say when car in programming >> world is full structure the vehicle is probably more >> the interface that car should give as its vehicle >> >> so "vehicle" is something other than auperfield >> (or how to call it) it must be something other, >> maybe i should call it tags >> >> im not in mood to write on it more today (not much good >> form and focus) but from this whai i write imo >> teh conclusion is probably - treelike structures and fields >> are not enough to do what is called polymorphism >> (and soem interface related things) so there is a need >> of define soem "tag system" probably aside of that > > there is also a matter of type > > becouse say you got such things > > s.x() > s.y() > > t.x() > t.y() > > u.x() > u.y() > > w.x() > w.y() > > there is no need to define 'type' at all? > or meybe its a need and say soem may define > one type say "chase" where s, and t belong and > second type where say "cake" u and w belong > > i must say im closer to thought maybe not to define such > types but im not strictly sure they could not be handy > and needed in some cases > > if no that would mean it all belongs to the same type > but names x,y are very meaningfull.. and whay is named x > means the same as to 'type' in various structures > > there is also a question what to do in such cases > > s.a > s.x() > s.y() > > t.x() > t.y() > t.z() > > u.b > u.x() > u.y() > > w.a > w.x() > w.y() > w.z() > > does the 'subtypes' (or suptypes, what i write > by typo here) need to be automatically 'generated'/reckognized > possibly maybe those 'suptypes' are those interfaces > - and those interfaces need to defined in usage point > say function f needs > > void f("x()", "y()", "z()") > > (where this in quites is a stub as im not sure how to write this) > > then possibly this usage generates intefrace - though > possibly those interfaces could be generated separatelly > > tag animal > { > x(); > y(); > z(); > } > > there is here a lot of a bit blind thinking on my side > (i mean such thinking im not sure, seen things in kinda > emptinnes) but thise remarks seem to have soem sense to me > maybe some relation among the types would come naturally like if interface animal { void a(); void b(); void c(); void d(); void e(); void f(); } is animal then things liek that interface zzz { void a(); void b(); void c(); void e(); void f(); } interface bbb { void a(); void b(); void c(); void d(); void e(); } would be maybe subanimals (almost animals) and things liek that ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========