On 10/31/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As, I think, is analogy to OOP to begin with.
>
> The term was used without definition. I drew parallels to existing
> usage of "subclass". :P
Technically speaking, you actually drew parallels to
On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As, I think, is analogy to OOP to begin with.
The term was used without definition. I drew parallels to existing
usage of "subclass". :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unk
On 10/31/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Additionally, in programming, objects belong to
> > > only one subclass. I find, therefore, that an individual case can only
> > > belong to one
On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Additionally, in programming, objects belong to
> > only one subclass. I find, therefore, that an individual case can only
> > belong to one subclass.
>
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/82412.html
I
On 10/31/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about multiple inheritance?
That would be multiple superclasses.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The crux of this is the definition of "subclass". Unfortunately, the
> only version of "subclass" I found in the dictionary is the biological
> one. It is worth noting that for the biological "subclass", a species
> belongs to only one. Additionally,
On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, in programming, objects belong to
> only one subclass. I find, therefore, that an individual case can only
> belong to one subclass.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/82412.html
7 matches
Mail list logo
