[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?

To: occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
From: Alan Grover <alan.grover@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:24:41 -0400
Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:25:26 +0100
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=GRAwTCnMylTh+xTDekSREb0Gcm/4lf8sGTRWJlRWqKvg5+UqpQMjQe9soCmTIxYWT2U1pGhfG7rt9kZJK6iTKeOjF/yqE+8dJ/6SJYpQbjavgSdVhKUmGtczMxcnvAu3Jngky8AOrNKwFl8FlocYmMId0Gwx8bFVroz/8IabIA4=
Envelope-to: phw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <D90489B77ED9F8439A3C784F732BEC9C737DD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <D90489B77ED9F8439A3C784F732BEC9C737DD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx

On 10/18/05, Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Regarding inheritance, most OO languages do not enforce that the dynamic behaviour of an object of the extended class in any way extends the behaviour of an object of the base class. For me it is still unclear how a "correct" extension of a dynamic behaviour should be defined, anyway ...

But if you decide to explore that, I for one would like to read the paper! :)

Alan Grover

Follow-Ups:
- Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
  - From: Ian East

References:
- RE: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
  - From: Koehne Kai

Prev by Date: RE: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
Next by Date: Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
Previous by thread: RE: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
Next by thread: Re: OO vs. CSP - Papers, Arguments?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread