Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:17:56 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> You always could do it in Smalltalk, just like you do in Ruby. One  
>>> advantage C# has is that you're not *actually* changing the string  
>>> class; it's just syntactic sugar. It's more like a C++ friend, except  
>>> with method/object syntax.
> 
>> It is nothing like 'friend' in C++. As I understand it, extensions only  
>> have access to the public interface of the extended class. Semantically,  
>> they seem much more like ordinary free functions in C++.
> 
>   Unless I'm missing something, I really fail to see how this is a
> useful feature.
> 
>   Basically, it seems, that instead of having to write, for example,
> "someFunction(anObject)" you can write "anObject.someFunction()".
> 
>   In other words, you simply can write the same thing with a slightly
> different syntax, but otherwise there's no difference. I really fail
> to see the usefulness of this.
> 

Its syntatic sugar. A convenience.



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message