The use of `class` for things that should be simple free functions

Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by crooked-v on Thursday May 28, 2020 @12:44PM (#23339421)

Nothing made this as clear for me as using the Nim language, where functions defined as

   proc doThing(x: MyObject; value: string)

can be called both with

   doThing(x, y)

and with

   x.doThing(y)

where x by itself is 'just' a data object, but is treated transparently by the language as having associated functions, setters, getters, etc as if it were a class (even though they can all also be directly called separately).

It's an approach that I find really elegant and that I wish more languages used in some way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by comfydragon on Thursday May 28, 2020 @07:12PM (#23344177)

That's a thing you can also do in Python:

    class MyObject:
        def doThing(self, value: str) -> None:
            # whatever
            pass

    obj = MyObject()
    obj.doThing("value!")
    MyObject.doThing(obj, "a different value!")

The only difference is that doThing is namespaced to the MyObject class.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by mehrdadn on Thursday May 28, 2020 @12:59PM (#23339623)

You certainly can do that. You can also refer to John Smith as "Mr. Smith", even when he's your dad. Whether it's more natural or more jarring or confusing is another question though...

[ Parent | on HN ]