On Jan 26, 1:39 pm, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Right - but the behaviors / significance of using each object might be > very different based on subtype. > > A website's Content Management System (CMS) basetype might offer short > name, long name, and permissions related attributes, which might be > enough to write large amounts of code managing large parts of the > website's infrastructure, and yet the subtypes might be as different as > a web bookmark and a Flash game.
Without an *explicit* common type, the code will work, if it does work, merely by "accident". There will be nothing in the code indicating why it *should* work. The actual reason why the code works is that it follows an implicit (hidden) protocol. Far better to make this protocol explicit. For me, the recent mucking about with various key-related dicts has brought home the point in the most forceful possible way. To repeat, as far as code integrity goes, Leo's present key-dictionary code might as well have been written in assembly language. It was quite a shock to realize how flimsy everything is. 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.
