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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1dc0d0f1c69afb5a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,f5822e34389e371e X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) Subject: Re: polymophism Date: 1996/11/25 Message-ID: <6LW66Hqk3RB@herold.franken.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 200707656 references: newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: donh@syd.csa.com.au wrote 25.11.96: > You may be thinking of clusters (which aren't part of the language). These > serve only to group classes into subsystems as an administrative convenience > and have no semantic significance. Though clusters have been declared not to be part of the language, they really are. After all, it is the *compiler* that declares an error if it can't find a class because it has been renamed via cluster configuration. Or, if you don't believe in a proof by "the compiler complains" (a standpoint that I usually share): Take away the cluster configuration from a set of classes. What's left is a set of classes with lots of undefined and ambiguous names, because the renamed clusters no longer exist under their expected names. Besides, I don't feel quite at home with the class = module requirement. There are useful libraries that consist of dozens of tiny classes, some containing nothing more than a few invariant or constant definitions. Such classes have too fine granularity to allow easy understanding of a system; you need larger units. I think the Cluster concept fill that gap (and quite well, too). Regards, -Joachim -- Looking for a new job. Resume available on request. WWW version of resume available under http://www.franken.de/users/herold/jhd/resume/index.html