nemesis wrote:
>> Because, every once in a while, the provider of the library wasn't 
>> omniscient.
> 
> You can also try another library. ;)

Well, yeah.

> You can see from this thread that while it began with CLOS, it ended in 
> C++ because of its tons of private, protected, friend and other 
> schizophrenic access mechanisms leading to complicated interfaces and 
> behavior for modules.

Actually, I thought it ended in C++ because that's the only unsafe OOP 
language I know of. It's the only language I know where the compiler 
attempts to enforce modularity but in practice fails to do so, by declaring 
violation of modularity "undefined" or "compiler-specific" rather than 
catching all cases of broken modularity at compile time or runtime.

I was trying to figure out how well-documented modularity breaking is a 
"kludge" but poorly documented unsupported modularity breaking isn't.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message