Re: Redeclaring overrides
Re: Redeclaring overrides
- Subject: Re: Redeclaring overrides
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:45:44 +0200
John,
>
>>>>> John C. Randolph (JCR) wrote at Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:55:05 -0700:
JCR> I call it "obstruction of maintainability." It's fine and dandy if
JCR> you're always going to be the maintainer of your code, but for many
JCR> others that is not the case.
Actually, I see it from the exactly different point of view:
(i) I see it as -- FOR EASY MAINTAINING!!! -- I should document in headers
all facts which are important and relevant for using and/or subclassing my
class;
[I guess so far we can agree totally? Right?]
(ii) I claim that the sole fact that a method was overridden does *NOT* mean
that is qualifies for the point (i). (The *way how* it's overridden might,
and often would, of course.)
[Could we agree with this or not? If not, why?]
JCR> >It is quite possible that my way of doing that would not
JCR> >change the behaviour of those reimplemented methods, but the behaviour
JCR> >of others!
JCR>
JCR> How is this inhibited by declaring overridden methods?
(iii) I personally find a header which contains the relevant information
only -- and *NOT* heaps of irrelevant one (relevance measured by the point
(i) above) -- *MUCH* better to aid maintenance, as compared with a header
which contains heaps of information needed for nothing.
Well, could you agree with those three points? If so, I guess you should
write headers like me ;))) If not, I am willing to discuss whether I or you
(or we both) overlooked something important.
---
Ondra Cada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc