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.