Re: Gee Functional iterators

[Didier 'Ptitjes' <ptitjes free fr>]

Hi Martin,

Glad that we have a potential new contributor ;)

On 13/07/10 16:18, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
> On 13/07/10 16:08, Martin DeMello wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Maciej Piechotka <uzytkownik2 gmail com> wrote:
>>> On 13/07/10 13:17, Martin DeMello wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm new to vala in general; could someone explain why adding methods
>>>> to, say, Iterable would break the API?
>>>
>>> Because method add to interface means any class which implemented the
>>> interface must implement additional method. Which it currently does not
>>> implement.
>>
>> But can't the methods be defined as concrete in the interface, the way
>> ruby does it? All it requires is foreach.
> 
> Currently no. But the bug I posted is about adding this functionality to
> Vala. Currently Vala interfaces are more Java/C#-like.

I personally dislike this way of extension and prefer the
interface/abstract-classes way, but here I guess that this is really a
question of style and habits...

All in all, breaking the ABI/API is not a problem, as we still have at
least one anticipated round of developement where we do expect to break
the ABI. So don't let that limit your imagination/creativity/engineering...

At first I propose that you both collaborate to define a feature set
that you would need/like/foresee. As you seem to have same background
concerning haskell and ruby, I guess you can easily come into consensus :)

So what kind of operators ? What do they take as argument ? ...

Then we would discuss of style. (methods defines on iterables,
iterators, ...)

Best regards, Didier.