Okay, perhaps it is a generalization of Open-Closed: Where a verb is
seen as lacking, it is better to create a new one with extended meaning
than to change the definition of the verb itself.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle> does not restrict
the principle to classes only.
To me, OO does NOT imply locales, nor the Package manager.
A verb which produces an error for some arguments is not independent of
the arguments, because its behaviour depends on its argument.
Raul Miller wrote:
On 10/30/07, Randy MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not convinced. The cases where one would be sorry are covered by
the Open-Closed principle, and restricting the domain removes the
independence of the verb on the argument.
I am dubious of this reasoning.
First off, the Open/Closed principle, as I understand it, is based
on certain kinds of deployment, which differ from J software's
approach for the language. Open/closed seems to about introducing
new subclasses -- new locales which reference the old locale -- for any
new behavior or features.)
When a new version of J is released, we download a fresh copy of
the interpreter. Open/Closed would be more appropriate for some
code managed by J's package manager than for changes to the
core language.
That said, I am not at all sure what you mean by "removes the
independence of the verb on the argument", and I may be overlooking
an important point.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| ramacd <at> nbnet.nb.ca |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er |
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
