Invisible wrote:
> In other words, abstract data type /= algebraic data type, just like 
> I've been saying all along. :-P

Yes, but I didn't say it was. I referred to "abstract data type" and many 
people said "You mean a class declaration without the implementation?"

I.e., bunches of people don't know the difference between "abstract data 
type" and "abstract class".  And then I think *you* told me "no, an abstract 
data type is a class without implementations, and an algebraic data type is 
what you think you're calling an abstract data type."

Clearly I misunderstood what you were telling me.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message