Collection interfaces (Was: New to OO concepts - re-usability)

[Patrick Logan]

"Topmind" <topmind at technologist.com> wrote
in message news:MPG.1503548620e632919896a4 at news.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > This is a sore point with me. To me it seems silly (artificial)
> > > to split collection handling into categories (stacks, sets, trees,
etc.).
> > > If needs change from one to another or a combo, then you are hosed
> > > with a non-fitting interface.
> >
> > Yes, and so OO language provide an advantage here. Collection classes
> > in these languages are accessible through common interfaces. You don't
> > care how they are implemented, you only care about the interface.
>
> You mean something like SQL or ODBC?

No, I mean collections, as with, say, the Smalltalk collection classes.

> And, this crap that only OO can do implimentation-hiding interfaces is
> pure propaganda.

It is possible to hide the implementation behind any procedure. But
it requires some kind of OO mechanism to be polymorphic. That
is what OO is, by definition.

--
Patrick Logan
mailto:patrickdlogan at home.com