> On 30 Jun 2015, at 11:00, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Le 28/6/15 19:00, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit : >>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 17:59, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 17:22, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> is there a real reason for Stack being a subclass of LinkedLink? >>> 1. You don’t need to adjust an internal data structure (grow, shrink, move, >>> sort) to update the stack but only move references. > But it is used in practice? > Because Stack could use a LinkedList and you get the same benefits and not > stupid methods that do not make sense for Stack.
agreed. > >>> 2. The interface is pretty similar > > No there are not :) > Stack is push pop top not insert after:..... > or this is a strange stack. What I meant was: Linked list provides an interface that allows for stack operations. Not that the naming conventions are the same. >> 3. It is an implementation detail/technique, it is indeed not as if Stack >> is-a LinkedList (from that point of view it is confusing) > > What I mean is that this is not good to have subclassing when we can use > subclassing. > We remove the fact that Dictionary is a subclass of Set for this reason. > You asked for reasons. I didn’t say they were *good* reasons :) >> >>>> Stef >>>> >>> >> >> > >
