On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:24:11 -0000, Adam <a...@anizi.com> wrote:
Ok, fine, let me put it THIS way. Suppose I use a parent library, and *I* don't update it. The USER of my library provides an updated version for some unrelated reason. So, NOT testing that something is instantiable or not - JUST that it's instantiable - is bad programming... ...but requiring 8 characters to a class definition *is ok*? So the only way to deal with this is *discipline*? What you're telling me is that instead of requiring a class to be explicitly abstract or not, it's instead a requirement of *good programming* to test that something IS, in fact, ABSTRACT OR NOT? What?
No-one is saying this, this is a "strawman". What has been said, is that if you were to distribute a library you should test it before releasing it.
R -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
