Luke wrote:
A variant a is said to be _more specific than_ a variant b if:
* Every type in a's signature is a subset (derived from or
equal) of the corresponding type in b's signature.
* At least one of these is a proper subset (not an equality).
A variant is dispatched i
I just realized something that may be very important to my side of the
story. It appears that I was skimming over your example when I should
have been playing closer attention:
On 7/18/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider the following classes:
>
>class A {..
On 7/19/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And now maybe you see why I am so disgusted by this metric. You see,
> > I'm thinking of a class simply as the set of all of its possible
> > instances.
>
> There's your problem. Classes are not isomorphic to sets of instances and
> derived
Luke wrote:
"In absence of other information, a derived class behaves just
like its parent."
I can argue that one into the ground, but it is a postulate and
doesn't fall out of anything deeper (in my thinking paradigm, I
suppose). My best argument is that, how can you expect to add to
some
On 7/17/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "You keep using that word. I do not think
> it means what you think it means"
> -- Inigo Montoya
Quite. I abused Liskov's name greatly here. Sorry about that.
Anyway, my argument is founded on anothe
