From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Record type with check?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:41:08 GMT
Date: 2001-01-10T21:41:08+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93ikth$ik5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 87hf373l3a.fsf@moon.mteege.de
In article <87hf373l3a.fsf@moon.mteege.de>,
Matthias Teege <matthias@mteege.de> wrote:
> If nobody knows a
> better representation I'll made a private type. ;-)
A private type *IS* a better representation. Nearly all types
should be private if they are at all complex, and most
certainly if invariants like this are to be preserved, the
appropriate interface is an abstract data type.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-01-10 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-01-09 8:12 Record type with check? Matthias Teege
2001-01-09 16:37 ` Florian Weimer
2001-01-09 22:12 ` Stephen Leake
2001-01-10 7:47 ` Matthias Teege
2001-01-10 17:05 ` Nick Roberts
2001-01-10 21:41 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
2001-01-13 0:19 ` mark_lundquist
2001-01-13 1:08 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox