From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Subject: Re: Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons
Date: 16 Oct 1994 23:54:15 GMT
Date: 1994-10-16T23:54:15+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37sef7$na4@network.ucsd.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1994Oct14.121611.22416@sei.cmu.e
firth@sei.cmu.edu wrote:
: Subject: Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons]
: In article <1994Oct14.094121@di.epfl.ch> Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) writes:
: >|> The private part and body of any child can access the private part of
: >|> its parent (and grandparent...).
: In principle, any mechanism that allows one to extend an abstraction
: also allows one to break it. That's a hard choice for the language
: designer to make.
How? You have an original thing A that is "not broken".
In most OO languages, you can make B which is "like A"
except for blah blah blah. Of course, the new stuff that you
do might happen to "break" the original intent of A.
But if your original program used A, and just A, how could A now
be broken?
--
-Matt Kennel mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-*** lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
prev parent reply other threads:[~1994-10-16 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1994-10-14 16:16 Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons firth
1994-10-14 14:13 ` eachus
1994-10-16 23:54 ` Matt Kennel [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox