Re: new OOP syntax

[Ben Abbott]

On Nov 16, 2010, at 11:12 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 16-Nov-2010, Ben Abbott wrote:
> 
>> | I'll give some more time for others to respond, and then submit a new 
>> entry into the tracker.
> 
> This is really a large project and I would consider it a missing
> feature, not a bug, so I'm not sure that it is appropriate for the bug
> tracker.

I had noticed that it is possible to set the "Item Group" to "Feature Request".

Should that be removed as an option, or can the tracker be used for this 
purpose as well?

In either event, I'm ok with not entering this into the tracker.

> 
> It's not like there is simply new syntax involved that would tie in to
> the current OO features.  Supporting classdef requires a completely
> new way of handing a different type of object than we currently have.
> 
> jwe

 I'm just beginning to look at what OOP syntax Octave currently supports.  It 
may be what I need is already possible.

What I currently need is to have a method modify the property of an object. For 
example, using Matlab's inputParser class ...

        p = inputParser
        addRequired (p, arg_name, @validator_function)

... adds a scheme for checking for a input reference by arg_name for which 
validator_function (arg_value) must be true. This scheme is stored in some 
private property of the inputparser object.

Is there a way for a method associated with p to assign a new value to "p" 
without a normal assigment (i.e. p = addRequired (...)))?

Ben