"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > > Jan Atle Ramsli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>There are--horror of horrors--data type problems that abstract data > > >>types are unable to adequately describe, and this is precisely what > > >>led to their demise as a fundamental organizing principle about ten > > >>years ago. > > > > Which the means that the _have_ been replaced by something else? > > This is so confusing that I will have to abandon it if I will not be > > able to understand it. > > They have not been *replaced*---in some cases, they are still > appropriate. But they are not the solution to all problems.
You 1.000.000 windows made me remember what concept replaced the ADT. It wasn't 10 years ago, though. I was supposed to have know this, I'm sorry. What's so special about 1.000.000 anyway, why not 1.000.001 - and here it comes: You just set a _class_invariant_ to 999.999 if you can't handle 1.000.000 - but of course then I bit myself in the neck. An ADT does not have a 'class invariant' - an Abstract Class does. Atle _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
