|
in reply to use of modules in special cases
Each module should be concerned with only its own actual needs – not its implementation at the then-present time. If A needs the functionality of B, B1, and B2, then "superficially" you should include all three ... while, perhaps, "idly wondering why this is so." What, exactly, is it about the present concept of "module A" that makes it simultaneously need not only knowledge of two subclasses, but also ("class-busting ...") knowledge of the parent class from which both of the other two were derived? "This smells bad..." |
Re^2: use of modules in special cases
by soonix (Canon) on Dec 23, 2019 at 11:49 UTC
|
"This smells bad..." Hmm... your writing style smells somehow, that may be the reason for some downvote. OTOH, what you say here, sounds mostly OK. On the third hand, all of it has already been said...
| [reply] |
|
