Back in JBCL days (1996-7ish), we had:
package com.borland.jbcl.model;
public interface WritableVectorModel extends VectorModel...
Same for SingletonModel, GraphModel (trees), MatrixModel (tables),
etc. All the GUI components had an XxxModel property of the base
type, thus expecting a r
John Nilsson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> wrote:
>
>> List should have just had lookup and 'make a copy of self' methods.
>> Then, MutableList, which extends it, should have had the add, addAll,
>> remove, removeAll, clear, and other mutating methods on them.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> List should have just had lookup and 'make a copy of self' methods.
> Then, MutableList, which extends it, should have had the add, addAll,
> remove, removeAll, clear, and other mutating methods on them.
So a MutableList can be passed
Well, there is a solution, to some extent. Type Hierarchy.
List should have just had lookup and 'make a copy of self' methods.
Then, MutableList, which extends it, should have had the add, addAll,
remove, removeAll, clear, and other mutating methods on them.
Iterator should have come in two vari
> Yes, the "freeze" concept seems more appropriate for dynamically typed
> languages than for statically typed interface-based languages.
One must then extrapolate that dynamic languages won't scale as well
across many cores as a static language, runtime metadata seems
paramount.
As to the builde
To take the discussion in a more serious direction...
--- Michael Neale wrote:
> [...] I think freeze was more for dynamic languages like ruby and
> groovy [...]
Yes, the "freeze" concept seems more appropriate for dynamically typed
languages than for statically typed interface-based languages.
... then the caliber of the discussion is not as bad as I had thought :)
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Christian Catchpole
wrote:
>
> It was supposed to be a joke. :) re-mutable? :)
>
> On Mar 4, 4:17 pm, James Dumay wrote:
>> IMO, If it allows you to make an immutable object mutable you mig
It was supposed to be a joke. :) re-mutable? :)
On Mar 4, 4:17 pm, James Dumay wrote:
> IMO, If it allows you to make an immutable object mutable you might as
> well stick to normal objects. Kind of defeats the purpose...
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Christian Catchpole
>
> wrote:
>
>
IMO, If it allows you to make an immutable object mutable you might as
well stick to normal objects. Kind of defeats the purpose...
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Christian Catchpole
wrote:
>
> Is there a thaw() method?
>
> On Mar 4, 8:11 am, Michael Neale wrote:
>> *slowly claps*
>>
>> Altho
Is there a thaw() method?
On Mar 4, 8:11 am, Michael Neale wrote:
> *slowly claps*
>
> Although I think freeze was more for dynamic languages like ruby and
> groovy that allow you to mess with the methods on a class, mess with
> the actual structure - in that case (at least in ruby) that means y
*slowly claps*
Although I think freeze was more for dynamic languages like ruby and
groovy that allow you to mess with the methods on a class, mess with
the actual structure - in that case (at least in ruby) that means you
lock the object down structurally, but I don't think that makes it
immutab
11 matches
Mail list logo
