Timeline for Does deciding about Liskov sub.princple compliance require a contract?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 26, 2018 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/1022587572109946880 | ||
Jul 26, 2018 at 17:28 | answer | added | John V | timeline score: 2 | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 10:20 | answer | added | Stop harming Monica | timeline score: 5 | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 9:57 | history | edited | Deduplicator | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
copy-edited
|
Jul 26, 2018 at 9:53 | answer | added | Deduplicator | timeline score: 1 | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 9:53 | answer | added | Flater | timeline score: 8 | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 9:35 | history | edited | Ezoela Vacca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
Jul 26, 2018 at 9:00 | comment | added | Ewan | also class Enemy : Boss should be Boss : Enemy ? | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 8:38 | answer | added | Ewan | timeline score: -2 | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 8:35 | history | edited | Ezoela Vacca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 159 characters in body
|
Jul 26, 2018 at 8:34 | comment | added | Ezoela Vacca | @Ewan: what do you mean? If this code is in the methods (I will update immediately) then LSP is violated - the behavior guaranteed by the parent is not guaranteed anymore (destruction of the object upon the method is called). And the thing is, if the contract stated "upon the CheckHealth, the game attempts to destroy the enemy with life <=0", it might comply, but is this truly so? It certainly violates LSP if the contract says "upon the call of CheckHealth, the object is destroyed"when Life<=0). | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 8:19 | comment | added | Ewan | you need to add methods to those classes, then i think you will find the LSP is not violated | |
Jul 26, 2018 at 7:53 | history | edited | Ezoela Vacca |
edited tags
|
|
Jul 26, 2018 at 6:46 | history | edited | Ezoela Vacca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
Jul 26, 2018 at 6:39 | history | asked | Ezoela Vacca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |