Feb. 27, 2002
8:40 a.m.
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 03:21 , M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The discussion is going astray again: Fredrik proposed an abstract base type, i.e. a type providing only the name and an interface which is defined as convention.
I am all for adding such an abstract base type (and others as well, e.g. for numbers, sequences, money, decimal, etc.) with minimal interfaces, but not for fixing a complex interface on top of these.
Oops, I had missed that bit as well, that adding an *abstract* base type was the intention. I'm all for that as well. -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -