Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Steve Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: 04 Feb 2000 09:09:15 -0800
Stefan Haustein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Can you please explain me then why Michael Anderson expected
> exactly this behaviour in XML Schema? If OOP is watered for
> efficency or legacy reasons in C++, that's OK to me. But when
> creationg something new like XML Schema, it's probably a good
> chance to do it a bit more elegant.
My comments were aimed squarely at the C++ comments, not really
considering XML-Schema. Thinking of what would be more 'elegant,'
though, still brings me back to the C++/LSP way of treating these
substitutability problems. What other ways are there? If your program
is expecting data _or_ a capability of form A and it encounters
something that cannot mimic A, then what can it do?
Steven E. Harris
Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.