Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Bill de hÓra wrote:
>
>> I don't seem to be getting all the mail in this thread, but to
>> whomever said that, please count me out of your consensus.
>>
>
> My apologies. I think the thread accidentally went off list into private
> mail for a time.
>
> Would you like to step up and defend Source as the appropriate level of
> abstraction?
I thought I had already indicated:
- that a heavily overloaded method indicates a missing abstraction [1]
- that Source is not ideal, but a better basis for evolution than a
class with a heavily overloaded method.
So if it's day 1 of iteration 2, then I suggest starting out from Source
not polymorphism [2].
cheers
Bill
[1] strictly speaking, there's a responsibility that ought to be
encapsulated within an object, but currently is not.
