"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > > Jan Atle Ramsli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The problem is that someone just popped out and said "The ADT is not > > longer relevant, it died 10 years ago". > > That's not what I said. You are getting really annoying; it's as if > you *want* to misunderstand. > > > That is: I have been told that some problems can not be solved with the > > concept of an ADT. > > I need to know: What are they. It takes only one example to convince me. > > Geez, an elementary programming text might help. > > Two classic examples: > > First failure mode: ADT specifications do not include information on > time complexity or expected uses. Consider for example an X 11 > "window" as an ADT. Now, what would you say if a spreadsheet design > started off with "ok, create 1,000,000 windows, one for each cell, and > we can just use X to manage display and positioning". Whoops!
Also spoke the Great Ayatollah of Operating Systems. I just figured out that I can not verify this. I only have a 19" screen. The issue has been resolved: Abstract Class has replaced ADT. I thought of it when looking for a 'class invariant' that I could set to 999.999.- Atle _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
