Timeline for Is structural typing in a hierarchical model necessary?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Migration of MSO links to MSE links | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 3:41 | comment | added | supercat | I very much dislike the idea of duck-typing based on member names, but would like to see a framework support duck-typing based on combinations of interface and class constraints, e.g. be able to declare something as a {Animal,IFoo,IBar}. It's possible to define an interface IFooBar which combines IFoo and IBar, but such an interface will not be satisfied by something that implements IFoo and IBar, but doesn't expressly implement IFooBar. Also, there are a few things like cloneability, mutability, immutability, and abandonability which should be orthogonal to a class hierarchy. | |
| Sep 2, 2011 at 5:36 | vote | accept | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | ||
| Sep 2, 2011 at 5:36 | vote | accept | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | ||
| Sep 2, 2011 at 5:36 | |||||
| Aug 26, 2011 at 16:40 | vote | accept | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | ||
| Sep 2, 2011 at 5:36 | |||||
| Aug 26, 2011 at 16:39 | answer | added | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 11:25 | answer | added | back2dos | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 10:43 | history | edited | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added context, linked questions. |
| Jul 28, 2011 at 8:44 | answer | added | Joris Timmermans | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 26, 2011 at 23:46 | history | edited | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Took RobertHarvey's suggestion. |
| Jul 26, 2011 at 23:44 | comment | added | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | Perhaps a good disambiguation would be adding the word 'has' to help clarify the context. This way if 'T' is required to be a class and have a series of members, the parser state would be easier to identify. An example being: where T : class, has { string Name { get; } } | |
| Jul 26, 2011 at 23:38 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Your brackets should really probably be braces. | |
| Jul 26, 2011 at 23:37 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited title |
| Jul 26, 2011 at 23:32 | history | asked | Allen Clark Copeland Jr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |