On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Felix S Klock II wrote: > Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor (even though I consider > it standard, even in the dynamic language community). How about: > "In general, the designer of an abstract class of data wants to > only provide an abstract view of that class."
No, this use of constructor-style printing is good for students and good in general. Showing students an 'abstract' view in a Scheme class is also fine. I just haven't thought thru the implications for design. ;; --- Clu is typed and Liskov/Guttag are "type guys" (though I doubt they understood the connection between types and proofs and soundness). -- Matthias
