Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Mon, 13 May 2013 00:15:24 +0200, Robert A Duff  
<bobduff@shell01.theworld.com> a écrit:

> Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure I see the point in having an object for a closed file,
>
> Yeah, I was about to post basically the same thing.  A closed file
> is pretty useless.

As said Niklas, the initial idea was requirements on the state of objects  
for some operation to occur or not occur.

Just on the object for a closed file, this make sense if the object does  
not really disappear when it is closed. If the object still exist in scope  
or via kind of references, it needs to have a `Closed` state. That would  
not be the same if the file would be automatically closed when going out  
of scope and always be opened when appearing in the scope.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University