Re: Abstract classes and methods
Re: Abstract classes and methods
- Subject: Re: Abstract classes and methods
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:30:36 +0200
Michael,
>
>>>>> Michael B. Johnson (MBJ) wrote at Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:40:49 -0700:
MBJ> I would like this option, and don't understand why other developers
MBJ> (especially Apple) don't package these informal protocols in formal ones
MBJ> when it make sense.
Quite naturally since it does not make sense for them, just like it does not
for me! I don't call you silly since you want them -- just pointed out many
others (including those who designed the thing) don't. If you do need them,
well, do it! It's possible and it's easy.
MBJ> >Otherwise, though I understand the problem (been bite by it once or
MBJ> >twice myself) I guess the possible "solution" of having oh-so-many
MBJ> >different protocols for all possible different usages of informal ones
MBJ> >would bring more grief than advantage.
MBJ>
MBJ> umm, why? How can this possibly be more grief than advantage?
Generally, for an informal protocol with N methods you would need 2^N formal
protocols to cover all possible usages. Although it is less with limitations
like "if you implement A you must implement B and must not implement C",
it's still not desirable, since it would clutter up the API. It's *MUCH*
easier to learn one informal protocol than to learn a swarm of formal ones.
---
Ondra Cada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc