Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!akwright From: akwright@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Andrew K. Wright) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: OOP languages and software reuse Message-ID: <10121@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 1 Dec 88 14:34:54 GMT References: <1250001@hpcllca.HP.COM> <612@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> Reply-To: akwright@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Andrew K. Wright) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 21 In article <612@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM> vaughan@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM (Paul Vaughan) writes: > While these benefits are important, I see a fundamentally different >usage paradigm available in OOL's that support before, after, and around >daemons as being more important. This concept is expressed nicely in >Sonya Keene's book (I think the title is "Object Oriented Programming In >Common Lisp"), as procedural abstraction. It is useful to document that a ... > Although it is true that this sort of reuse also requires careful >design for reuse, I believe it is feasible to do using an incremental >approach. Before such a resuable component can be released, it should How does this help the incrementality problem? In what way can you incrementally modify a program which you could not before? ie. I have a pre-existing class STRING (built by someone else), which I am not allowed to modify. Then I cannot sort it, unless the designer anticipated my need and caused STRING to inherit from SORTABLE. Andrew K. Wright akwright@watmath.waterloo.edu CS Dept., University of Waterloo, Ont., Canada.