Re: On view updating
From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:09:04 GMT
Message-ID: <Afk5d.24478$He1.10848_at_attbi_s01>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:09:04 GMT
Message-ID: <Afk5d.24478$He1.10848_at_attbi_s01>
"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:41540767$0$568$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
>
> I said it a while ago, I'll say it differently now: IMHO only the
> *defining* operators should participate in any definiton of a type.
> Other operators do *not* belong there.
First I think I understand this, then I don't, then I do again. Can you expand on what you mean? I suspect this definition can only exist in the face of encapsulated state; otherwise there is no distinction between a function that is part of the definition of a type and one that isn't.
Marshall Received on Sat Sep 25 2004 - 22:09:04 CEST