Skip Montanaro wrote: > Michael> Guido writes: > >> How about SubstitutabilityError? > >I don't think that's any better. At the very least, people can Google for >"Liskov violation" to educate themselves. I'm not sure that the results of >a Google search for "Subtitutability Error" will be any clearer > ... > >I don't think that's appropriate in this case. Liskov violation is >something precise. I don't think that changing what you call it will help >beginners understand it any better in this case. I say leave it as it and >make sure it's properly documented. > > > Yes but in order to fall into a Liskov Violation, one will have to use extreme OOP features (as I understand from the ongoing discussion for which, honestly, I understand nothing:). So it's not like it will happen often and when it happens it will make sense to the architects who made such complex things. +1 on SubstitutabilityError or something easier and moreover because of the fact that some people really don't care who Liskov is and what he/she discovered, and whether that same thing would had been discovered anyway 2 mothns later by somebody else if the Liskov person wasn't there. St.
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