Browse thread
Smells like duck-typing
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Loup Vaillant <loup.vaillant@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Smells like duck-typing |
2007/10/18, William D. Neumann <wneumann@cs.unm.edu>: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:58:50 -0500, Robert Fischer wrote > > > If you think that a full story as a story with a summary/header, > > and also a body, then you're conceptually into inheritance. > > > > From a formal standpoint, you're saying that all full stories > > can be treated as headers/summaries/"blurbs", but not all > > headers/summary/"blurbs" can be treated as full stories. > > This is equivalent to saying that full stories are a subtype > > of header/summaries/"blurbs". > > Well, I think the problem here is that the mental model is reversed with > respect to the functional model. Mentally, blurbs are kinds of stories -- > they are distinguished by their lack of a body. Using the standard > inheritance lingo, however, stories are a kind of blurb -- distinguished by > the inclusion of a body. Really, it seems like we've got a six of one/half- > dozen of the other situation... It feels like the problem is the keyword "inherit". It suggest C++/Java subtyping, while we just want code reuse. If having stories inheriting from one another eventually result in less code, I would consider that cleaner, no matter what "inherit" is supposed to mean. Sometimes, a tool can be good at something it has not be designed for. I think this might be the case, here. Regards, Loup Vaillant