[Grace-core] Super-Outer-Objects: What does your language (gBeta/Newspeak/Scala/Java…) do with this? What should Grace do?

[James Noble]

On 22/11/2012, at 18:21 PM, Andrew P. Black wrote:

> method A {return object {
>      method pathological {print "A-pathological"}  
>      def B = object {
>           method foo {pathological}
>           method bar {outer.A.pathological}
>       }
> }}
> 
> and so A is dynamically bound at method request time.  

right. I just don't see why that works for methods (some of the time)  and not e.g. for defs even if they are readable, public… 
That may be just a big

> I don't like the outer notation much, but the meaning seems clear enough.  

right.

> (I would prefer being able to put a local name for an object between the object keyword and the open brace.  It's essentially a µ binding. )

yep. OCaml does this, Newspeak actually does "outer C.foo" where "C" is the name of the class, because, well it is class based.
Newspeak's object literals apparently aren't implemented so I don't know how they'd work there. 

The main reason I'm not sold on this is that it adds more complexity, isn't used that much, and gets confusing - compare

def A = object { … 

with 

object A { … 

Should the second form add something to the surrounding object, like "class A" and "method A" would? 

James