Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >> Because that wouldn't break locational transparency for the
> >> implementation.
> >
> > I think he just doesn't see the usefulness of locational transparency.
> > It is thus useless to proceed on that subject without coming to an
> > agreement on the usefulness of locational transparency.
>
> You obviously know what I meant to say, but to be clear, my comment
> should have read "would", not "wouldn't".
Hehe, actually, I had misread that, but it turned out to be correct!
> > As explained in "Component Software", all you really need is for an
> > interface to be a "strict superset" of the older interface. As long as
> > you can use the newer interface in the place of the old one, you are all
> > right. This can also be defined as supporting both interfaces at the
> > same time (i.e. the new inherits from the old and QI answers to both
> > IIDs).
>
> Right, but even there the old interface is still frozen (for all intents
> and purposes), though the implementation may have changed. In such cases,
> care must be taken to ensure that the semantics behind the old interface
> remain unchanged (from the previous implementation) as well.
Of course, I agree.
--
Pierre Phaneuf
http://www3.sympatico.ca/pphaneuf/
