From: "DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com>
Subject: Re: User defined boolean
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:56:37 GMT
Date: 2000-10-31T03:56:37+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <VprL5.34497$E85.876306@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8tikk1$g7q$1@nnrp1.deja.com
You're absolutely right! I meant to say "overload" not "override".
SteveD
"Robert Dewar" <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tikk1$g7q$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3N3L5.30691$E85.782438@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
> "DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote:
> > You can certainly override the built in AND and OR operations
> > to work for your new type:
>
> Bad terminology! This has nothing whatsoever to do with
> overriding, since surely there ARE no AND/OR operations
> for the type, so what the above *should* say is simply
>
> "You can certainly define AND and OR operations to work for
> your new type (whatever your definition of working might be!)"
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-10-31 3:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-10-29 0:41 User defined boolean Daniel Allex
2000-10-29 1:22 ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-30 1:02 ` DuckE
2000-10-30 1:58 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-31 3:56 ` DuckE [this message]
2000-10-31 19:48 ` 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