Tom Melly wrote:
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
> 
> 
> As I implied ('capabilities'), and as Warp made explicit, the ideal would be an
> expansion of the existing syntax rather than a replacement. However, ingo raises
> a semi-valid point....

Well, IMHO the whole idea of OO is to make the source more readable and thus
more maintainable. If Ingo's point is even a little bit valid I think OO 
is better left out. At this point I cannot judge very well because I
still have no good perception of how an OOPOV would look, but perhaps
that is because I did not play anough with macros. FYI I do not program
in C++ or java, but I try to program as much in OO-style as I can in
Matlab. So in general I am in favor of OO.
   Andrel

Post a reply to this message