But hopefully once and for all. What started in Disarray, and then seemed briefly Final, yet was still Revisited, has, just perhaps, at last settled into a design that doesn’t nag me. (Or, at least, doesn’t nag me so much I find myself constantly chewing on the bone.)
It feels that I have finally solved how I want BOOL to do arrays!
Picking up the topic of Model implementation two years later, some further thoughts about the new method as well as about the set and get methods.
The summary here is that all three are virtual methods built into the implementation. They have to be to handle the under-the-hood aspects of Instances. They can be “extended” by user code, but not over-ridden.
One of the last hurdles involves the implementation of the new behavior. Models manage Instance value objects and provide new data objects (used by Instance objects to populate Call Frame slots). Model objects must provide an API to support creating and destroying Instance objects as well as manipulating their value objects.
There is a design choice involved with regard to how Instance objects are bound to their Model object. A similar choice exists concerning Actor objects and their Action objects. (Actors can be called “instances” of an Action.)
The choice is between a BOOL-like design where the Instance sends a message to the Model, or an implementation design that lets the Instance directly call the Model. This post documents the two choices and the resolution to use the latter.
There was meant to be a third article in the Native Objects series that would discuss the Actions (“methods”) supported by the native Models (“classes”). But I’ve only begun to define those things. For now, suffice to say that typical data types (integers, floats, strings, etc.) have the methods you’d expect. Assignment for all, basic math for the numeric types, stringy stuff for the string; you get the idea.
I’ve reached another major milestone, but I’m also about to begin another design phase as I figure out exactly how to implement the native Models. And I may be taking a break from this blog to give BOOL a rest and to deal more with other matters.
I think the final piece of the array puzzle finally fell into place. The issue resolved when I last wrote about arrays — whether all data Models have array capability versus arrays being a distinct data model — still stands.
The final piece involves a slight syntax change and — much more importantly — the full rationale for the array syntax. Not really having one was a bother; it made arrays seem arbitrary and patched on. The rationale brings them more fully into the BOOL fold.