On 5/1/13 at 5:43 PM, [email protected] (Bill Frantz) wrote:
On 5/1/13 at 1:37 PM, [email protected] (Tab Atkins Jr.) wrote:
Ah, I'm not proposing that we augment the base Future class with
cancellation properties. I explicitly used the term "subtype" in the
quoted bit above. *Some* of Ron's suggestions were to augment the
base Future class, but not all of them, and several other people
pushed back on that.
I think that covers the issue.
Cheers - Bill
Upon further reflection, I think the point about premature
standardization stands.
Also, a pure inheritance model -- which is implied by
subclassing -- may be the wrong model. If one wants to include
POLA in one's programming style, one will probably want to
separate the authority to access the resulting value from the
authority to abort the computation.
Cheers - Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | gets() remains as a monument | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | to C's continuing support of | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | buffer overruns. | Los Gatos,
CA 95032
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
