Re: Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:10:05 +0200
Graham Wideman wrote:
Robert:
Thanks, and...
You're welcome!
Right. You got it. That's what OO is about.
Well, I already had the OO part, just needed the ruby version of it :-) plus connecting the dots might help others stumbling along this way, and you never know it might turn out that your "consistency" comment was referring to something else I didn't see.
I probably should have put "encapsulation" somewhere in that posting. :-) Anyway, I'm glad I could help sort these things out.
Anyhow, this discussion has been most helpful to alert me to all the capabilities that Array has, and calibrating my sense that a little bit of assembly required to implement collections with various features, they're not just in some library that "of course" everyone knows about and uses :-)
Yeah, the reason is probably that Array and Hash are so powerful on the one hand and that requirements are so different on the other hand. Java follows a tad different approach by providing collections for usual situations.
Kind regards
robert
.
- References:
- Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- From: Graham Wideman
- Re: Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- From: Robert Klemme
- Re: Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- From: Graham Wideman
- Re: Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- From: Robert Klemme
- Re: Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- From: Graham Wideman
- Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- Prev by Date: Ruby threads and the system call
- Next by Date: Re: SQL Generator library
- Previous by thread: Re: Collections of structured-data objects: what approach?
- Next by thread: Ruby 1.8.5 released
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading