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: | Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Smells like duck-typing |
Hi,
> That seems backwards from the way OO inheritance is supposed to work.
> You don't go from a more feature-rich case to a less feature-rich case
> -- it's the other way around.
Of course it is -- that is precisely why inheritance is the wrong
formalism for my problem! What I need is a "reverse inheritance"
formalism, where a fully defined data structure sits at the root,
and whose descendants are PRUNED versions of the parent.
If sound (and I let the theoreticians decide on that), such a
formalism would be an interesting solution to the type of problem
that originated this thread.
Cheers,
Dario
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/