From: <Bjo...@si...> - 2003-11-07 08:23:20
|
I only have limited experience with OOP from C++ some years ago. IMO virtual, dynamic and abstract are misleading, since what you are defining is more of a template (dynamic template) or prototype. "Dynamic" is not that far off seen in context, but when left alone it sounds strange. All in all i think "abstract" is better. Just my $0.02 > -----Original Message----- > From: Niels Harre [mailto:ni...@ha...] > Sent: 6. november 2003 23:22 > To: ope...@li... > Subject: Re: [opengoop inheritance] Virtual Methods should be called > Dynamic Methods > > > Howdy, > > I've given the suggestion some thought.. I agree that > "Virtual Virtual > Instruments" doesn't sound too good. But I'm not too sure we > should change > the name to "Dynamic Methods". > > The case with double adjectives in "Virtual Virtual > Instrument" may also > arise when using "Dynamic": Consider the explanation "A > dynamic method > dynamically calls (using VI server) a method in a descendant > class". In my > opinion pretty much the same, and too close to the underlying > technology. > > The question is: What is a "Virtual Method" thought to accomplish? > > - it defines an interface (the connector pane). > - it has no implementation in the class where it is defined. > - its implementation is deferred to a descendant class. > > That is an abstraction... consequently I suggest that > "Virtual Methods" > should be called "Abstract Methods". Also, - taking it a step > further - > what about classes having the same features as listed > above... Should they > be called "Dynamic Classes". The class itself is not dynamic. > However, - > "Abstract Classes" are abstractions... > > Please let me know what you think. Even though I don't belive > we should > spend too much time on this. > > All the best > Niels > > At 20:16 05-11-2003 +0000, Jim wrote: > >Hello All, > > > >Stephen Mercer, a member of the LabVIEW Development Team at > NI, attended our > >group meeting last night. During the OpenGOOP Inheritance > discussion he > >recommended that we call Virtual Methods "Dynamic Methods" > to avoid confusion > >with the term Virtual Instruments (we don't want Virtual Virtual > >Instruments). I like this idea. Any objections or comments? > > > >-Jim > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > >Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it > >help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help > >YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > >_______________________________________________ > >OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > >Ope...@li... > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > _______________________________________________ > OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers > |