|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |