From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Curtis Bass Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency Date: 1995/04/19 Message-ID: <3n3o9c$cud@atlantis.utmb.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101281476 references: <3mbmd5$s06@icebox.mfltd.co.uk> <3mcfbf$psl@acmez.gatech.edu> <3mgnkc$e3j@atlantis <3muaif$46u@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n0lsu$nio@druid.borland.com> <3n0uvi$8jt@atlantis.utmb.edu> <3n3ilk$8vm@disunms.epfl.ch> organization: Office of Academic Computing newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1995-04-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: matomira@di.epfl.ch (Fernando Mato Mira) wrote: -- snip -- > > i. I will not be able to write a procedure that > > is independent -- it must be attached to an object > > No. This is Single-dispatch Fallacy #1. > Encapsulation problem is now solved, thanks to Craig Chambers.. If I can write a procedure that is NOT attached to an object, then I am NOT using a "PURE" OOPL. -- snip -- > F.D. Mato Mira http://ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html Curtis Bass Software Systems Specialist II University of Texas Medical Branch