Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?
From: Paul Campbell (p.au.l.ca.mp.b.ell_at_ob.jectvi.sion.c.o.u.k)
Date: 03/15/04
- Next message: Paul Campbell: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Previous message: Isaac Gouy: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- In reply to: Tsolak Petrosian: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Next in thread: Joe \: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Reply: Joe \: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:41:39 -0000
"Tsolak Petrosian" <tsolakp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a052897d.0403121154.5f58f8f2@posting.google.com...
> > So do they or dont they share commonality ?. If they do, why isnt that commonality
> > defined in an interface, if they dont, then my original point applies.
> >
> > Paul C.
>
> They dont share commonality.
>
> Paul C wrote:
> "If they dont share any commonality then then surely there is
> *nothing* you
> can usefully do with such an object".
>
> Why qwe cant do anything usefull with Object which implements two
> interfaces which dont share any commonality?
If there is no interface overlap then you have to explicitly switch on object type
in order to make use of methods that are specific to one or other of the
implicit or explicit interfaces.
If you have to explicitly switch on object type then why not simply provide
two seperate methods in the first place.
Paul C.
- Next message: Paul Campbell: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Previous message: Isaac Gouy: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- In reply to: Tsolak Petrosian: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Next in thread: Joe \: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Reply: Joe \: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|