What does "only" mean?
Perhaps we should take this offline.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > You forgot to name the readonly one -- it specializes DOMRect by
> >> > guaranteeing that its instances not provide the ability to mutate the
> >> > underlying DOMRect. Given the other names, DOMRectReadOnly or
> >> > DOMReadOnlyRec
> >> > (did you really mean to omit the "t"?) seem like fine names for the
> >> > readonly
> >> > subtype.
> >>
> >> In Roc's explanation, the readonly one (you can't change the values,
> >> but something else might be able to) is the common superclass. As he
> >> argued, I'm pretty sure this satisfies LSP - an immutable class is a
> >> valid subclass of a readonly one (you lose nothing, and gain the
> >> ability to depend on the values staying constant), and a mutable class
> >> is also a valid subclass of a readonly one (again, you lose nothing,
> >> but you gain the abiilty to alter the values yourself).
> >
> > You lose the inability to mutate. If this inability to mutate was not
> part
> > of the intended contract of the superclass, it should not use the term
> "read
> > only".
>
> I'm not particularly interested in making the name less readable to
> make the name *itself* better match LSP.
>
> ~TJ
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 21:11:40 UTC