Timeline for Why does(/did) Bertrand Meyer think subclassing is the only way to extend a "closed" module?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | David Moles | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 20:18 | comment | added | gnat | @DavidMoles per my reading, in Wikipedia it it is specified pretty much the same as in OOSC 2nd Edition: "At the implementation level, closure for a module... implies that you may compile it, perhaps store it in a library, and make it available for others (its clients) to use..." | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 18:45 | comment | added | David Moles | (I wouldn't take the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article too seriously, as it's a mishmash of Meyer's and Martin's ideas.) | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 18:29 | comment | added | David Moles | Clients can still rely on the stable description of version 1, even when using version 2. If that's not "closed", then a subclass whose clients can still rely on the stable description of the superclass isn't "closed" either, it seems to me. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 17:53 | comment | added | gnat | @DavidMoles replace with version 2 (as in, change source code and recompile) wouldn't qualify as "closed for modification", you can simply check this in Wikipedia article: "entity can allow its behaviour to be extended without modifying its source code..." | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 17:32 | comment | added | David Moles | (Inheritance, to me, implies that version 1 is still around and called by version 2.) | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 17:31 | comment | added | David Moles | Hmm. I don't see "version 2 of this library, which replaces version 1 and is backwards compatible with it, adds the following functions…" as "inheritance" except in the broadest possible conceptual way. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 16:50 | comment | added | gnat | @DavidMoles thing is, it could, and last part of my answer explains that, and that Meyer himself realised that (when he reworked for 2nd Edition) and even gave examples of how it can be done. "As for what specifically made author change their mind..." etc | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 16:28 | comment | added | David Moles | Interesting, and I'll definitely have to try to get ahold of the second edition, but it's still not clear to me why even a non-OO "classical" library couldn't add (at least certain kinds of) features without disturbing its clients. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 8:34 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 4, 2015 at 7:34 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor wordsmithing
|
| Oct 3, 2015 at 21:56 | history | answered | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |