- From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:38:20 -0700
- To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 20:38:47 UTC
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:36 PM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>wrote: > On 17/10/13 19:22, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > In a quick skim of these I did not find anything that contradicts the >> view that a read-only object implies the inability to modify the >> underlying state *via that object*. But there's a lot of text there and >> searching for "who" didn't find anything. Where do these APIs violate >> the LSP interpretation of read-only? >> > > I don't see how changing the name can possibly change whether the LSP is > being violated. LSP depends on what the contract is. > Either we think that a fully mutable object can never be a subclass of a > readonly/view/whatever object or we don't. Let's take a subset of that claim: "Either we think that a fully mutable object can never be a subclass of a whatever object or we don't." Well, which do you think? Doesn't it depend of what "whatever" is? > Whether one believes that seems to depend on whether you think the missing > setters form part of the contract that must be preserved for subclasses. > Exactly. -- Cheers, --MarkM
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 20:38:47 UTC