Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> here, because you need ADTs to explain pattern matching, but you need 
>> pattern matching to explain ADTs.
> 
> You don't need pattern matching to explain ADTs. Explain ADTs with math 
> (and textual substitutions, etc), then explain how pattern matching 
> expressions can help automate what to do.
> 
> Actually, Meyers did a really nice job of explaining ADTs to justify 
> object-oriented ideas in his Eiffel book.

Meyers explained ABSTRACT Data Types, not ALGEBRAIC Data Types. 
Different ADT. ;-)

> http://docs.eiffel.com/book/method/object-oriented-software-construction-2nd-edition

> 
> If you haven't read that, you should.

I'm pretty sure I have read it.

Post a reply to this message