Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: "Mark Wilden" <mwilden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:22:15 -0800
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165394433.275278.102040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff Louie wrote:
Gary... There are many definitions for the word type. In C# I find the
definition of a type as a named generic interface to be a useful
definition. In a
nutshell a general interface is a particular set of signatures.
It strikes me as a less than useful definition when "interface" and
"generic" are already defined in C#. A definition which not only needs
more definitions in order to be useful, but those definitions are
overloads of *existing* definitions is likely to lead to confusion, I
suspect.
Actually, I found the definition rather compelling. Programmers use
"generic" and "interface" all the time without referring to C# features, and
have done for years. Saying we shouldn't use them in defining terms like
"type" is like saying we shouldn't use the term "is" because it has a
specific meaning in C#. :)
///ark
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- References:
- Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: garyusenet
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jeff Louie
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Prev by Date: Account for leading and trailing whitespace.
- Next by Date: Re: Shell Extension Problem - Windows Explorer Crash
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
