[REBOL] Re: Objects, Inheritance and Barking Up Wrong Trees?
From: agem:crosswinds at: 27-Apr-2001 5:09
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Am 26.04.01, 04:02:32, schrieb "Dunlop, Scott" <[Scott--Dunlop--nextel--com]>
zum Thema [REBOL] Objects, Inheritance and Barking Up Wrong Trees?:
> I am currently trying to determine the best way to override an object
> method; at the moment, I've been doing the obvious thing, copying the
> function into a new binding:
> ss-histfield: stylize [
> histfield: field with [
> feel: make feel [
> old-engage: get 'engage
> engage: func [face act event index][
> switch/default act [
> ; << Special Case Code Here >>
> ] [
> old-engage face act event index
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> While this works, it is more brittle than I would like, since the
old-engage
> binding isn't private to histfield's feel, and could collide with a
child
> trying to do a similar thing, or revisions to the field feel. Does
anyone
> have a simpler / better solution for doing this?
> Btw, I am aware that there is probably another way to override
feel/engage,
> but this is one of two sticking points that my Python-oriented mind
tends to
> get hung up on. The other is my addiction to Dictionaries.
Ugly, and you cannot use [()]'s in your top-level-code, but
with 'compose you can do:
>> a: context[
[ b: func[a][probe a]
[ ]
>> c: make a[
[ b: func[a]compose/deep[
[ (second :b)
[ probe a * a
[ ]
[ ]
>> a/b 123
123
== 123
>> c/b 123
123
15129
== 15129
Volker
