> 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.

I'd be rather surprised if that's what I said, given that I have no clue 
what the hell an abstract data type actually is.

(I remember the Eiffel book mentions them. And I remember the concept 
not making much sense...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message