|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:17:56 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |