From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>
Subject: Re: OO vs procedural
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 05:18:28 -0400
Date: 2006-05-05T05:18:28-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <uwtd0bziz.fsf@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1146771650.465144.99370@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
"kevin cline" <kevin.cline@gmail.com> writes:
> In the second paper, they give this example:
I'm missing context here; what paper are you talking about?
> <snip code>
>
> The authors then point out a describe a potential pitfall of this code
> -- that a derived type implementation may fail to call the base
> implementation. This is true.
Right.
> The authors fail to point out that this possibility could have been
> prevented by correct base class design.
How, exactly? I've never heard this claim before.
--
-- Stephe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-05 9:18 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
2006-05-05 9:18 ` Stephen Leake [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox