On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (think mock objects)
that can make two classes have equivalent interfaces. I'd like some
way to mark this equivalence
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 09:25 AM, Kurt Starsinic wrote:
Sounds like you want Java-style interfaces to me.
Follow the thread back. Objective-C had them way first, and their
ur-name is protocols.
D'oh! Sorry, I had read that, but then forgot.
David
--
David Wheeler
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 08:49 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (think mock objects)
that can make two classes have equivalent
--- chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 08:49 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (think mock
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a
broken type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
Multiple Inheritance != Protocols | Interfaces
I quite agree, but I've done enough Java to know that if they
--- chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a
broken type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
Multiple Inheritance != Protocols | Interfaces
I quite
On Jul 24, David Wheeler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (think mock objects)
that can make two classes have equivalent interfaces. I'd like some
Chromatic wrote:
[snip]
I think you want to declare I comply with ruleset X at the callee
object level. That enables the compiler to (1) check that you're not
lying; and (2) optimize based on (1).
At least one of us is using caller/callee in the X11 sense. What I
mean and what I think
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 05:28 PM, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
If this were Java, the way to do this would be to define a Thingie
interface, and then an (archetypical) ThingieObject class... any time
that we want to actually *create* Thingies, we would use new
ThingieObject, but everywhere
