Is it a FOOP peculiarity?

[ralph.ronnquist]

[rickyboy]

Doesn't look a FOOP thing. Looks like a "passing data by value" thing.

I haven't had to pass by reference yet in newLISP, so I've no experience to share, but .

Hope that helps a little.

[ralph.ronnquist]

Ah! Right. Thanks. Interesting that I hadn't caught on to it eariler, but obviously I need to change my mind set a bit...

[ralph.ronnquist]

[ralph.ronnquist]

Maybe I should anwer my own question with: "Don't go there!".

I think it ultimately is better for me to return to a proper relational data perspective rather than attemting a relational modeling of an object oriented data perspective. In that way I can avoid forcing a base level of platform inclusions for offering an "improved" language level; not because it's hard to do, but because it's harder to maintain. As you all know, anything non-standard carries the cost of needing maintenance.

And what I liked with newLISP is it's pointedness for scripting, that virtually anything you like to automate in practice, you typically do in a page full of standard newLISP code (plus the two or three pages of comments).

The big pot holes for me are that, since it's Lisp (-ish), I can (and want to) do so much more, and also, that the name of FOOP did pull me astray into OO land. But really, it's rather a matter of me learning to utilize the polymorphism of FOOP within its boundary of a relational data perspective.