Re: Structured programs (long)
From: H. S. Lahman (h.lahman_at_verizon.net)
Date: 04/23/04
- Next message: Georg Bauhaus: "Re: OOP Language for OS Development"
- Previous message: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- In reply to: Adrian Hey: "Re: Structured programs (long)"
- Next in thread: Adrian Hey: "Re: Structured programs (long)"
- Reply: Adrian Hey: "Re: Structured programs (long)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:11:36 GMT
Responding to Hey...
> Your arguments (and hence the questions above) are based on the premise
> that in order to meet new program requirements functional programmers dive
> in at any point they care in the dependency graph and start modifying the
> behaviour of functions (changing their specifications in effect), This is
> not so, so your questions above are un-answerable, except to say as a
> general rule FPers do "none of the above" in the course of maintaining
> their programs. In my facile example I was quite careful to preserve
> wobbler, precisely *because* of the allegedly non-existant hierarchical
> dependency of implementations (not specifications BTW, as you stated in an
> earlier post).
As I expected, you don't have an alternative construction technique to
that of my example that will avoid the hierarchical dependence of wobble
on boggle during maintenance.
*************
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.
H. S. Lahman
hsl@pathfindermda.com
Pathfinder Solutions -- Put MDA to Work
http://www.pathfindermda.com
(888)-OOA-PATH
- Next message: Georg Bauhaus: "Re: OOP Language for OS Development"
- Previous message: Michael Rauscher: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- In reply to: Adrian Hey: "Re: Structured programs (long)"
- Next in thread: Adrian Hey: "Re: Structured programs (long)"
- Reply: Adrian Hey: "Re: Structured programs (long)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|