 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doesn't Haskell support encapsulation?
Last time I checked, Java has the same limitation.
In a single Java class, all methods must have unique names. (Ignoring
for a moment the fact that Java supports overloading which Haskell
doesn't.) Similarly, in a Haskell module all function names must be unique.
Either way, you can't use the same name for multiple things in a single
source code file, in either language. And yet I don't see people
claiming that Java doesn't "support encapsulation". So I'm not sure what
you're getting at...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Doesn't Haskell support encapsulation?
>
> Last time I checked, Java has the same limitation.
>
> In a single Java class, all methods must have unique names. (Ignoring
> for a moment the fact that Java supports overloading which Haskell
> doesn't.) Similarly, in a Haskell module all function names must be unique.
>
> Either way, you can't use the same name for multiple things in a single
> source code file, in either language. And yet I don't see people
> claiming that Java doesn't "support encapsulation". So I'm not sure what
> you're getting at...
>
Without knowing a single thing about haskell, "module" *sounds* to me
like a Java package, not a class...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Without knowing a single thing about haskell, "module" *sounds* to me
> like a Java package, not a class...
Each Java class has to go into a separate source code file. Each Haskell
module has to go into a seperate source code file. Both languages
require unique names within a single source file file. ;-)
(And a Java "package" is really just a bunch of classes that have the
same prefix in their name, nothing more...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Doesn't Haskell support encapsulation?
> Last time I checked, Java has the same limitation.
You said:
> > struct Point {int x; int y;}
>
> data Point = Point {x, y :: Int}
>
> Caution: Note that the names "x" and "y" must be unique within the
> entire module. For this reason, you'd probably use longer names.
I understand to mean that the names 'x' and 'y' in your code above
actually garbage the global namespace.
In the original C code they are local to 'Point' and do not affect
anything outside it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Doesn't Haskell support encapsulation?
>
>> Last time I checked, Java has the same limitation.
>
> You said:
>
>>> struct Point {int x; int y;}
>> data Point = Point {x, y :: Int}
>>
>> Caution: Note that the names "x" and "y" must be unique within the
>> entire module. For this reason, you'd probably use longer names.
>
> I understand to mean that the names 'x' and 'y' in your code above
> actually garbage the global namespace.
No - the namespace of the current module. And in Java it would be the
same - the names are local to this class file.
> In the original C code they are local to 'Point' and do not affect
> anything outside it.
That's true...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No - the namespace of the current module. And in Java it would be the
> same - the names are local to this class file.
No. In Java it's local to the class, not to the file. You can have
multiple classes in a single source file, as long as only one of them is
public.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> No - the namespace of the current module. And in Java it would be the
>> same - the names are local to this class file.
>
> No. In Java it's local to the class, not to the file. You can have
> multiple classes in a single source file, as long as only one of them is
> public.
Really? Interesting... I wasn't aware Java had non-public classes.
(Although I did wonder why the hell you have to write "public" at the
start of every class.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Really? Interesting... I wasn't aware Java had non-public classes.
> (Although I did wonder why the hell you have to write "public" at the
> start of every class.)
If you don't add 'public', the class is only accessible from other
classes on the same package.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Really? Interesting... I wasn't aware Java had non-public classes.
>> (Although I did wonder why the hell you have to write "public" at the
>> start of every class.)
>
> If you don't add 'public', the class is only accessible from other
> classes on the same package.
Well, I didn't know that.
Interesting - once or twice a year that might be useful...
So much for university education, eh? Mind you, we learned Java from the
guy who tried to tell us that the maximum range of a "double" is "more
than the number of atoms in the universe". ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:28:46 +0000 schrieb Invisible:
>
> Each Java class has to go into a separate source code file. Each Haskell
Oh, then I have to throw away my Java compiler, because I usually write
all the classes I need for my (admittedly small) mobile phone projects
into one file. And it compiles! Bad compiler!
Ok, it's not good for reusability, I know that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
