From: Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: OO vs procedural
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 08:14:22 +1000
Date: 2006-05-05T08:14:22+10:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sa4odydfnep.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1146771650.465144.99370@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>>>>> "kevin" == kevin cline <kevin.cline@gmail.com> writes:
kevin> The authors then point out a describe a potential pitfall
kevin> of this code -- that a derived type implementation may fail
kevin> to call the base implementation. This is true. The
kevin> authors fail to point out that this possibility could have
kevin> been prevented by correct base class design.
What is the potential error in the above code? I think I must have
missed it.
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-04 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-27 12:06 OO vs procedural Ed Falis
2006-05-04 19:40 ` kevin cline
2006-05-04 20:21 ` Ludovic Brenta
2006-05-05 7:58 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2006-05-04 22:14 ` Brian May [this message]
2006-05-05 9:18 ` Stephen Leake
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox