>>>>> "PC" == Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: PC> Good OO programming practice. Use polymorphism to replace switches. Then PC> when you subclass one of your classes you don't have to go 'round PC> rejigging the switch statements. I haven't used OO in anger. But for me polymorphism is action-at-distance of the worst stripe. Its the cheap and dirty way of doing OO. Let the object determine the calling convention for the method. I see very little reason to have two methods with different signatures. <chaim> -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for builtins Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for buil... Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and clas... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... John Porter
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... John Porter
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for buil... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 80 (v1): Exception objects and classes for builtins Chaim Frenkel