On 2012-02-21 21:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/21/12 12:03 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-02-21 17:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/21/12 10:50 AM, Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
I thought that an alternative to Variant[string] would be to have some
virtual
functions overrideable (getExceptionData(string dataName) or
something).
but they would all have to return Object or Variant, so it's the same
thing.
Exactly. By and large, I think in the fire of the debate too many people
in this thread have forgotten to apply a simple OO design principle:
push policy up and implementation down. Any good primitive pushed up the
exception hierarchy is a huge win, and any design that advocates
reliance on concrete types is admitting defeat.
Andrei
That because you can't (shouldn't) push up implementations specific to a
given subclass. Why don't we only have one class, Object, and add a
Variant[string] there.
Do you see how stupid that is.
I think I do. It's also fair to ask you if you are sure you understood
my point.
Andrei
As I said, it seems you want to push up implementation details specific
to a given subclass to the base class even though it shouldn't be pushed up.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
