Michael This must be one of those cases where I am mislead by my
Michael background... I thought of Liskov substitution principle as a
Michael piece of basic CS background that everyone learned in school
Michael (or from the net, or wherever they learned
Michael programming).
Skip Montanaro wrote:
Michael This must be one of those cases where I am mislead by my
Michael background... I thought of Liskov substitution principle
Michael as a piece of basic CS background that everyone learned
Michael in school (or from the net, or wherever they
At 05:54 PM 1/12/05 -0700, Steven Bethard wrote:
Not that my opinion counts for much =), but returning None does seem
much simpler to me. I also haven't seen any arguments against this
route of handling protocol nonconformance... Is there a particular
advantage to the exception-raising scheme?
At 02:03 PM 1/12/05 -0600, Skip Montanaro wrote:
I don't think that's appropriate in this case. Liskov violation is
something precise. I don't think that changing what you call it will help
beginners understand it any better in this case. I say leave it as it and
make sure it's properly
My point is that it'd be nice if we could come up with an exception name
which could be grokkable without requiring 1) Google, 2) relatively
high-level understanding of type theory.
How about SubstitutabilityError?
The point is broader, though -- when I get my turn in the time machine,
I'll
