QuickLink: [TclOO WishList and Work Roster] ** Response ** "It just works. Kudos to Don": - [Will Duquette] , [Twentieth Annual Tcl/Tk Conference (2013)] ** TclOO 1.0 Released ** TclOO 1.0 was released on 2012-12-21. It corresponds to the version included as part of Tcl 8.6.0. http://sourceforge.net/projects/tcl/files/TclOO%20Package/1.0/%|%Download%|%. ** TclOO 0.6 Released ** TclOO 0.6 has been released on 2008-10-14. It corresponds to the version included as part of Tcl 8.6a3. ** Announcement ** ''Announcement on news:comp.lang.tcl on 01-Oct-2007'': I'm very pleased to announce that TclOO version 0.1 is now released. It's hosted in the Tcl project at [SourceForge], so you can download the source package from: http://sf.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=10894&package_id=247402 It requires Tcl 8.5b1 to build and operate; see the enclosed `README.txt` for details on how to build this TEA-based package. No promises on whether I'll do a binary package for any platforms as yet. :-) Details about this package can be found in the Wiki, naturally, at http://wiki.tcl.tk/TclOO and any problems should be reported using Tcl's issue trackers at http://sf.net/tracker/?group_id=10894&atid=110894 with the summary field prefixed by "TclOO:". [SDW]: For those of you following at home, TclOO is now in the [Teacup] package manager (thanks Jeff!). If you have ActiveTcl 8.5 beta 9 or greater run: ''[teacup install] TclOO'', and try it out for yourself. [RS] tried, and failed at first attempt - needed ''[teacup proxy] proxyname port'' before, then it worked. For the impatient, here's the simple example from `README.txt` (which by the way does not come with the installed package, but can be found on http://tcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/tcl/oocore/ ). [DKF]: If you're checking it out of CVS, remember to check out `oo` and not `oocore` so that you pick up `[tclconfig]` in the right directory. [LV]: Has anyone written a Tutorial for the specfics of TclOO? ====== package require TclOO; #if loading for the first time oo::class create summation { constructor {} { variable v 0 } method add x { variable v incr v $x } method value {} { variable v return $v } destructor { variable v puts "Ended with value $v" } } set sum [summation new] puts "Start with [$sum value]" for {set i 1} {$i <= 10} {incr i} { puts "Add $i to get [$sum add $i]" } summation destroy ====== which gives (only last lines shown): ====== ... Add 10 to get 55 % summation destroy Ended with value 55 ====== Should you see the error message ====== attempt to provide package TclOO 0.1.1 failed: package TclOO 0.1 provided instead ====== it helps to refetch the HEAD, rerun configure, and do a clean build. The test suite is at http://tcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/tcl/oocore/tests/oo.test and passes well on my Win XP/8.5b1 setup. Update: Without [teacup], I took the source distro http://downloads.sourceforge.net/tcl/TclOO0.1.tar.gz?modtime=1191249015&big_mirror=1 which falied to [make]. Following [tclguy]'s advice, I obtained http://tcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/tcl/oocore/TclOO.rc , created a ''win'' directory in the sources and put it there, and almost presto... TclOO runs on old W95 too (at least passes all 85 tests in oo.test :^) ---- **What Is TclOO?** [LV] 2007 Oct 01: So what is the intention for TclOO? Is the intention that people will write Tcl object oriented code with this extension? Or is it intended to be a framework for existing and future OO extensions to be more powerful? [DKF]: It's a core for other OO extensions, but in order to do that job properly it also needs to be a basic OO framework itself. [DKF]: The other thing that it isn't is a class library. That can go in [tcllib] just nicely. [LV] 2008-05-29: So, for J. Casual Tcl User, what are the ramifications of the distinguishment of being a core for OO, and not being a class library? What will one see (and not see) compared to the normal Tcl OO extension? [DKF]: I'm not really sure how to respond to that. The key consequence is probably that not much will change; you'll be able to ignore the fact that there is OO support except when it is providing a specific benefit to you. At an implementation level, the benefit is that it scopes the development and keeps the amount of work required sane and the delivery schedule practical. You might or might not think of this as a benefit... :-) [LV] I guess what I mean is this - when J Average Tcl developer, used to using Snit, stooop, XOTcl, itcl, etc. sees the annoucement that Tcl 8.6 now has OO support in the core, the expectation will be that now there is the ''one ring to bind them all'' - that these new commands will be sufficiently enough commands for J Average Tcl developer to use for all their OO needs. However, it seems to me, reading comments to date here and elsewhere, that developers trying to use only ::tcl::oo to do their work may find that it is doable, but limited compared to what they are used to seeing in [snit], [incr tcl], and the other extensions. Am I correct in this understanding? From the beginning, I thought this code was really designed to be used by the OO extension writers. But I keep seeing remarks around the community as if people are expecting that ''oo in the core'' means something that, in my mind, is much more grandiose than is planned. I'm just trying to determine whether my expectations are too low, or others have expectations a bit too high. [DKF]: Ah. Well, I think we'll be doing some more classes (e.g. quite possibly code to support [chan create] better, maybe a [megawidget] framework, and [TDBC] of course) but there won't be a vast number. We don't need to change the whole world; Tcl was working fairly well beforehand. ---- ** TclOO::ext ** I collected some TclOO extension in a package here: https://github.com/arthurschreiber/tcloo-ext Currently included is a Reference Counting system inspired by ObjectiveC/Cocoa to make memory management easier and a class method inheritance through MetaClasses (not using mixins). ---- ** Discussion ** [DKF] ''18 May 2007'': At last, after a long hiatus, I've had enough time to finish getting the code smashed into shape as a loadable [TEA] extension. It works for me (as in: successfully runs the test suite) on both Windows and Linux (built with gcc on both) as long as you're using a recent-enough version of Tcl (i.e. more recent than 8.5a6; there was an internal API that had to be modified to prevent crashes when [info frame] was used inside a method). Right now, there's no distribution, but you can check it out of [cvs] using: ====== cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@tcl.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/tcl co oo ====== To build, just change into the base directory of the code and do a configure/make combo. (Also includes experimental support for building a starkit version, as long as you have [sdx] on the path. Let me know if it works or not, as it doesn't work locally for other ugly reasons.) Note - do not check out the ''oocore'' module; that's incomplete since it lacks the (required) [TEA] build support. 04jun07 [jcw] - Some notes on trying to build this extension: * I'm used to doing just "make install", but that only works if "make install" also causes a normal "make" * am getting the following build error (MacOSX x86): ====== install: /.../TclOO-0.1/library/*.tcl: No such file or directory ====== * have worked around it by creating an empty library/blah.tcl for now :) Ok, that woiked, great! Now a usage question, if I may: is there some nice idiom for the following? ====== my variable {*}[info vars [namespace current]::*] ====== IOW, set up methods to automatically have access to all object state as plain variables (as in Itcl). The above line would be added in front of all method definitions, using a small wrapper (am generating methods dynamically anyway). This assumes that all variables are defined in the constructor. ''[escargo]'' Does this use of variable contrast confusingly with the Tcl [variable] where something like that would assign the names of half the variables as the values of the other half of the variables? [jcw] - Well, I'm just trying it out, so don't shoot me ;) - although so far I tend prefer this over the "variable" cmd. ''[escargo]'' - I was just asking a question. It's just that having '''my variable''' work not like [variable] might be considered confusing. [jcw] - Here's an example with some output which may help those who don't have TclOO yet: ====== oo::class create dog { method a {} { puts a1-[namespace current] puts a2-[namespace path] foreach x [namespace path] { puts a3-$x-[info commands ${x}::*] } puts a4-[info vars [namespace current]::*] my variable e set e f puts a5-[info vars [namespace current]::*] } self.method b {} { puts b1-[namespace current] puts b2-[namespace path] foreach x [namespace path] { puts b3-$x-[info commands ${x}::*] } puts b4-[info vars [namespace current]::*] my variable e set e f puts b5-[info vars [namespace current]::*] } } dog create fifi fifi a dog b # Output: # a1-::oo::Obj4 # a2-::oo::Helpers # a3-::oo::Helpers-::oo::Helpers::self ::oo::Helpers::next # a4- # a5-::oo::Obj4::e # b1-::oo::Obj3 # b2-::oo::Helpers ::oo # b3-::oo::Helpers-::oo::Helpers::self ::oo::Helpers::next # b3-::oo-::oo::InfoClass ::oo::class ::oo::InfoObject ::oo::object \ # ::oo::copy ::oo::define # b4- # b5-::oo::Obj3::e ====== As you can see, each class and each instance gets its own namespace. Note also that class Dog ended up as namespace Obj3, even though it was constructed with a specific name (which is not necessarily globally unique, though). [DKF]: I've been experimenting for a while now with OO systems, and a '''my variable''' that brings every variable in the object into scope is probably not what you want as it causes great problems in subclasses (i.e. clashes between subclasses' variables and local variables). Instead, I think that being able to pick up all the variables defined within a particular class would be far more useful. OTOH, it's not at all trivial to implement (I think I expose enough API that it can be done through the use of class metadata, but I'm not certain) so I'm not in a hurry to change things. It was a deliberate decision to make '''my variable''' different from [variable]; the latter has syntax that is almost never what anyone wants, and so is ''a priori'' suboptimal. Hence I went for something that was more likely to be what you need. :-) (''[escargo]'' - Well, I wondered if you did it on purpose, and you did. And I see it was for what you think is a good reason.) Also, as noted, the internal namespaces have names that are not necessarily those of the created object, and their names are deliberately not documented (i.e. they could change between point releases with no warning). Use the introspection facilities to go from one to the other. ''[APW] 2007-06-05'' @ [jcw]: I am working on an extended version of [dkf]'s code suitable for Itcl, which would have solutions for some of the problems you have mentioned above. For example I am using "apply" and "namespace upvar" and "namespace unknown" to generate Itcl methods, which have access to all the class variables in the class hierarchy (if they are not private) etc. Using only the name of a variable as in Itcl is possible, same for call of Itcl methods without the "my" in front. If you are interested please contact me directly, the implementation is not yet ready for real testing. @ [dkf]: If I know what I really need additionally for Itcl I will contact you and we can try to perhaps get a merged version. At the moment all my modifications are additional functionality so that the original functionality should work as before with also running all your tests without problems. ---- ** Aspects with TclOO ** [DKF]: The following example is ripped from the documentation of [next]: ====== oo::class create cache { filter Memoize method Memoize args { # Do not filter the core method implementations if {[lindex [self target] 0] eq "::oo::object"} { return [next {*}$args] } # Check if the value is already in the cache my variable ValueCache set key [self target],$args if {[info exist ValueCache($key)]} { return $ValueCache($key) } # Compute value, insert into cache, and return it return [set ValueCache($key) [next {*}$args]] } method flushCache {} { my variable ValueCache unset ValueCache # Skip the cacheing return -level 2 "" } } oo::object create demo oo::define demo { mixin cache method compute {a b c} { after 3000 ;# Simulate deep thought return [expr {$a + $b * $c}] } method compute2 {a b c} { after 3000 ;# Simulate deep thought return [expr {$a * $b + $c}] } } ====== === puts [[demo compute 1 2 3] ''→ prints "7" after delay'' puts [[demo compute2 4 5 6] ''→ prints "26" after delay'' puts [[demo compute 1 2 3] ''→ prints "7" instantly'' puts [[demo compute2 4 5 6] ''→ prints "26" instantly'' puts [[demo compute 4 5 6] ''→ prints "34" after delay'' puts [[demo compute 4 5 6] ''→ prints "34" instantly'' puts [[demo compute 1 2 3] ''→ prints "7" instantly'' demo flushCache puts [[demo compute 1 2 3] ''→ prints "7" after delay'' === ''Way cool, great separation of functionality. Next step: a Metakit backed cache? ;) -[jcw]'' [DKF]: I've thought more about this, and have written an [Aspect Support Class for TclOO]. ---- ''[APW] 2007-06-06'' For discussion of Itcl related topics for a new implementation based on this TIP see [tclOO missing features for Itcl] ---- **Performance Measurement** ''[DKF] 20-Sept-2007'': As seen in my Tck2k7 paper, TclOO is really quite fast. Here's those performance figures (correct with 8.5b1 on my ancient laptop). %| OO System | Objects Made (s⁻¹) | Method Calls (s⁻¹) |% &| TclOO 0.1 | 32800 | 206000 |& &| itcl 3.4.0 | 22500 | 128000 |& &| XOTcl 1.5.5 | 18500 | 87500 |& &| Snit 2.1 | 2080 | 54700 |& &| Snit 1.2 | 1020 | 24700 |& &| stooop 4.4.1 | 13900 | 26700 |& '''Notes:''' It turns out that stooop non-virtual methods are much faster, but they're not comparable with the other methods as they do not allow overriding of the method by subclasses, so I used the (comparable) virtual methods instead, which are much slower. [DKF]: Reanalysed with modern hardware and new versions of XOTcl, TclOO and snit (~3 sig. figures) - this machine doesn't seem to have stooop: %| OO System | Objects Made (s⁻¹) | Method Calls (s⁻¹) |% &| TclOO 0.3 | 121000 | 981000 |& &| itcl 3.4.0 | 87900 | 573000 |& &| XOTcl 1.6.0 | 87200 | 404000 |& &| Snit 2.2.1 | 7190 | 881000 |& All are packages built by ActiveState, running on Tcl 8.5.2. (I see differences in my own tests, but can't tell what their origin is.) Analyzing those figures, we see (from the itcl baseline) that the machine is about 4.25 times faster (average). We therefore can see that TclOO is getting a (little) better at method dispatch though it is slower at object construction. We also see that XOTcl has improved a lot on the construction front, though it is still not very fast at method dispatch. Looking at snit, we see that it is now very fast at method dispatch (nearly as fast as TclOO) but is still very slow to create objects. [Sarnold] : Indeed [snit] is very slow at object instanciation, but building a snit-like system on top of [XOtcl], namely [xoins], give it far better creation times at the cost that method dispatch is slower. I do not know if [William Duquette] is still working on a TclOO snit implementation - I hope it will succeed, because [snit] is really good for [Megawidget]s and has a nice syntax that fits well upon [Tcl]'s one. [DKF]: I'm working on two sets of (independent) improvements to TclOO that should make doing snit on top of it easier. Firstly, I'm doing something to make variables easier to use, so you can declare them once per class instead of once per method. Secondly, I'm trying to make submethods work (one of the neatest features of Snit). Apart from these, I suspect that the current method forwarding implementation is over-simplistic in its model; need someone to point me at a use-case case or two in order to figure out how to improve on that. ---- The script used to create the performance data is below. (Well, I actually did it interactively over a few runs, so I don't warrant that this script will really work...) ***Performance Analysis Script*** === package require Tcl 8.5b1 # Compute '''C'''alls '''P'''er '''S'''econd of a script # Note that this script is self-tuning; it prefers to execute a script for around a second === ====== proc cps {script} { # Eat the script compilation costs uplevel 1 [list time $script] # Have a guess at how many iterations to run for around a second set s [uplevel 1 [list time $script 5]] set iters [expr {round(1/([lindex $s 0]/1e6))}] if {$iters < 50} { puts "WARNING: number of iterations low" } # The main timing run set s [uplevel 1 [list time $script $iters]] set cps [expr {round(1/([lindex $s 0]/1e6))}] puts "$cps calls per second of: $script" } ====== === #'''──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────''' puts "using '''Itcl'''..." package require Itcl 3.4 namespace path itcl === ====== class foo { variable x constructor {} { set x 1 } method bar {} { set x [expr {!$x}] } } foo f cps {f bar} delete object f cps {delete object [foo f]} delete class foo ====== === #'''──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────''' puts "using '''XOTcl'''..." package require XOTcl 1.5.5 namespace path xotcl === ====== Class create Foo Foo parameter x Foo instproc init {} { my set x 1 } Foo instproc bar {} { my instvar x set x [expr {!$x}] } Foo create f cps {f bar} f destroy cps {[Foo create f] destroy} Foo destroy ====== === #'''──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────''' puts "using '''TclOO'''..." package require TclOO 0.1 namespace path oo === ====== class create foo { constructor {} { variable x 1 } method bar {} { variable x set x [expr {!$x}] } } foo create f cps {f bar} f destroy cps {[foo create f] destroy} foo destroy ====== === #'''──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────''' puts "using '''snit'''..." package require snit 2.1 === ====== snit::type foo { variable x constructor {} { set x 1 } method foo {} { set x [expr {!$x}] } } foo f cps {f bar} f destroy cps {[foo f] destroy} foo destroy ====== === #'''──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────''' puts "using '''stooop'''..." # ''Must go last because it plays games with proc which might disturb the'' # ''performance of other OO systems. Note that stooop has both virtual and'' # ''non-virtual methods, with very different performance profiles. The virtual'' # ''ones are much more comparable in capability to other OO systems...'' package require stooop 4.4.1 namespace path stooop === ====== class foo { proc foo {this} { set ($this,x) 1 } proc ~foo {this} {} virtual proc bar {this} { set ($this,x) [expr {!$($this,x)}] } proc bar-nv {this} { set ($this,x) [expr {!$($this,x)}] } } set f [new foo] cps {$f bar} cps {$f bar-nv} delete $f cps {delete [new foo]} ====== ** Examples ** [Playing with TclOO]: [TclOO Tricks]: [TclOO Channels]: [coroutine]: contains a TclOO example by [CMcC] **See Also** * [TIP #257: Object Orientation for Tcl] * [Megawidgets with TclOO] * [Fun with TclOO, coroutines and apply] * [TclOO Method Dispatch] * [Serializing TclOO objects] * [typedlist] * [TclOO trace filter] * [MeTOO] – MeTOO emulates TclOO for Tcl 8.4 * [TclOO Tutorial] * [JBR's tcloo.tcl] Man pages * [oo::class] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/class.htm] * [oo::copy] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/copy.htm] * [oo::define] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/define.htm] * [oo::objdefine] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/define.htm] * [oo::object] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/object.htm] * [my] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/my.htm] * [next] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/next.htm] * [self] [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/self.htm] * info [http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/info.htm] ** [info class] provides introspection of classes (many subcommands) ** [info object] provides introspection of objects (many subcommands) <> Object Orientation | Package