Timeline for Do changes in performance violate the Liskov Substitution Principle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2013 at 18:10 | vote | accept | ConditionRacer | ||
| Feb 11, 2013 at 9:48 | comment | added | DeadMG | Liskov states that for the Derived, it should be usable anywhere a Base is. That may well not be true if the Base guarantees certain performances or characteristics. For example, if Derived blocks, there may be the potential for deadlocks. | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 21:18 | comment | added | iteratingself | My point was that as soon as you include anything other than type in the criteria you are no longer talking about Liskov as it is specific to type. While the "practice" of not subbing out differently performing objects may be good, Liskov itself has nothing to say about it. | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 11:30 | comment | added | DeadMG | I explicitly stated so in my answer? | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 9:13 | comment | added | iteratingself | Performance isn't something enforceable via a type check. It a promise of the implementer/library maintainer. | |
| Feb 9, 2013 at 23:42 | history | answered | DeadMG | CC BY-SA 3.0 |