Op vrijdag 11 januari 2013 14:27:43 UTC+1 schreef David Loeffler het volgende: > > I'm keen to keep Matrix_integer_2x2 as a subclass of Matrix. I'd have said > that doing it any other way is likely to cause lots of obscure bugs (since > developers will quite naturally assume that Matrix_xxx is a subclass of > Matrix for any value of xxx, and have probably already done so in existing > code). > > But not implementing it correctly will likely give similarly obscure bugs, don't you agree? Of course, those would probably be obscure bugs in future code instead of in existing code.
Those developers who have already assumed that it is a subclass can't have used that assumption much, because it is a broken subclass implementation, breaking its superclass's methods. Note that I'm not against implementing the same interface, just against doing so by subclassing. Thanks to duck typing, that shouldn't break existing code that doesn't deserve it / that doesn't depend on a broken implementation. As you said earlier, this is not an end-user class, so not breaking existing code does not have as high a priority as it would otherwise have. Timo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
