From graphics-request at octave dot org Tue Dec 21 14:41:03 2004
Subject: Re: Octave GUI API: Proposal.
From: Ole Jacob Hagen <waterthrill at yahoo dot no>
To: N Smethurst <nick dot smethurst at free dot fr>
CC: graphics at octave dot org
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:41:50 +0100

N Smethurst wrote:

> There is another advantage to this approach. It allows the use of a 
> syntax
>
> more appropriate to an object based system:
>
> For example, instead of:
>
> mysurface = surface(X, Y, Z);
>
> set(mysurface, 'AmbientStrength', 0.5);
>
> set(mysurface, 'DiffuseStrength', 0.8);
>
> strength = get(mysurface, 'AmbientStrength');
>
> One would say:
>
> mysurface = surface(X, Y, Z);
>
> mysurface.AmbientStrength = 0.5;
>
> mysurface.DiffuseStrength = 0.8;
>
> strength = mysurface.AmbientStrength;
>
Wouldn't this kind of behaviour break compatibility with the users that 
still uses M*atlab together with Octave?
They would never write this kind of code, but I agree that it should be 
possible to use this syntax.


Ole