Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fir <fir@grunge.pl>
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: <ae4d14d57ad613d2f28d8b3d97b4800fd14687a7@i2pn2.org>
References: <117bbbb6a2baef294a5f8f489eddb9e5bf1f06fe@i2pn2.org> <e0de98b53c112db2502d456e8e7170ec61d31e68@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: <e0de98b53c112db2502d456e8e7170ec61d31e68@i2pn2.org>
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 ==========