Am Freitag 09 Mai 2008 10:19:45 schrieb Bruno Desthuilliers: > >> very often sees do-nothing catch-all try/catch blocks in Java - > >> which is way worse than just letting the exception propagate. I > >> find all this totally pointless, because there's just no way for a > >> compiler to check if your code is logically correct. > > > > But it's enough if the called method exists and returns the correct > > type. At least it prevents a crash. > > Then providing an appropriate default in the base class is enough > too.
Only working *if* there is a base-class, and not only convention for should-have-methods. > >>> That's the point. Interfaces garantee that a duck is a duck, an > >>> not only a chicken that quack. > >> > >> Who cares if it's a chicken as long as it quacks when you ask her > >> to ? Now *This* is the whole point of chicken^Mduck typing, isn't > >> it ?-) > > > > Ducks can also swim and fly. And if you need a really duck, > > If you're code expects something that quacks, swims and flies, > anything that quacks, swims and flies is ok. You just don't care if > it's a duck or a flying whale with a quacking device tied to it. Not the point. > > Of course, in the practical world that all doesn't matter. But in > > the theoretical world of the big coding farms, called business, > > that's one cornerstone of success, in the tinking of managers and > > so. > > Sorry, I live in a very practical world - and we're by no mean > running out of business here... Like i said. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
