On Jan 26, 11:32 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is all standard OO theory. What's interesting is how it ties in with > the idea that we know, or *should* know, the types of the objects in our > programs. Can anyone explain to me how programmers could, in any situation at all, create working code *without* knowing the types of the objects they use? True, OO theory says that one should use subclasses instead of dispatching on (subtypes) of objects, but so what? Imo, code simply *must* be written with a set of known types in mind. Can anyone provide a persuasive counter-example? EKR -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
