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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: kennel@nospam.lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270118222 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> Organization: University of California at San Diego Reply-To: kennel@NOSPAMlyapunov.ucsd.edu Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 05 Sep 1997 16:38:30 GMT, Jon S Anthony wrote: :First, it is really a separate interface (not necessarily a 1-1 with :file). Second, you seem caught in the thought mode that everything is :modeled via inheritance related classification. A widespread though :unjustified belief. An interface need not be involved in any :inheritance hierarchy. If you use abstract base classes as the means :to interfaces, then you are basically publishing a "contract" that :things derived from them will have the characteristics (methods and :whatnot) described in the base abstraction. Yes. How does that differ in any important way from the relation between a package interface and its body? -- * Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD * * According to California Assembly Bill 3320, it is now a criminal offense * to solicit any goods or services by email to a CA resident without * providing the business's legal name and complete street address. *