On 11 February 2011 02:28, David T. Lewis <
[hidden email]> wrote:
Just yesterday i had discussion about this with people in the lab. I
can't say that i heard something new regarding this,
and not saying that i'd like to resurrect the discussion.
So, in short: there was no objection concerning getting rid of isXXX
in favor of using #is: method.
The only thing which still looks controversial is too simple default
implementation which answers false.
To my current opinion, Juan's variant is preferable. :) Yes. it should
answer false and don't contain any extra logic , like trying to follow
class hierarchy etc.
Because it serves to replace isXXXX pattern, and not adding something
new (i.e. more 'userful'). So, answering false for Object class fits
well for this purpose.
And of course solution to that problem is simple:
- avoid writing code in style, which require isXXX tests and then
branching. Nicely written code should use message dispatch instead.
Too bad, we are not living in perfect world :)
> Any strong objections?
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Locked
