On Thursday, July 24, 2003, 5:45:33 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 08:49 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
> No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a broken
> type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
There are other alternatives..
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 09:45 , Kurt Starsinic wrote:
On Jul 24, chromatic wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 05:28 PM, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
The problem with Java interfaces is that you have to rely on the
library writer to have expected you to use an interface. Given the
amount
On Jul 24, chromatic wrote:
> 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
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 el
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 wh
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 li
--- 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
>
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 coul
--- 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 (t
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 i
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 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 *withou
On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 04:25 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
In Objective-C:
id untyped = somefunction();
id typed = otherfunction();
If you send a message to C which isn't in the C protocol
definition, you get warnings. Depending on the implementation, that
assignment might be dynamicall
On 19 Jul 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> [1] It would be totally cool to use a Haskell- or ML-style type
> inference system, but those things just don't work in procedural
> languages.
Could you clarify what you mean by "don't work" here? ML has both
assignment and type inference, so it seems like it
Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
[1] It would be totally cool to use a Haskell- or ML-style type
inference system, but those things just don't work in procedural
languages.
And they're very slow when not done at compile-time. Try a Haskell
interpreter like hugs vs. a Haskell compiler like ghc.
Steffen
--
15 matches
Mail list logo
