Alex
why don't you move CAFunction as extension of Function?
Stef
I do not know whether this is better or not.
Alexandre
On 26 Aug 2009, at 10:54, stephane ducasse wrote:
Alex
why don't you move CAFunction as extension of Function?
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
It is a doru mention a while ago: extension is better than subclassing.
I do not know whether this is better or not.
Alexandre
On 26 Aug 2009, at 10:54, stephane ducasse wrote:
Alex
why don't you move CAFunction as extension of Function?
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Indeed, I encourage extensions to subclassing. In the long run it makes things easier when you want to make two extensions work together.
Doru
On 27 Aug 2009, at 08:19, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
It is a doru mention a while ago: extension is better than subclassing.
I do not know whether this is better or not.
Alexandre
On 26 Aug 2009, at 10:54, stephane ducasse wrote:
Alex
why don't you move CAFunction as extension of Function?
Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"What we can governs what we wish."