On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 03:21 , M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > The discussion is going astray again: Fredrik proposed an abstract > base type, i.e. a type providing only the name and an interface > which is defined as convention. > > I am all for adding such an abstract base type (and others > as well, e.g. for numbers, sequences, money, decimal, etc.) > with minimal interfaces, but not for fixing a complex interface > on top of these. Oops, I had missed that bit as well, that adding an *abstract* base type was the intention. I'm all for that as well. -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4