On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Valeri Fine (Faine) wrote:
>> Implementation of these classes breaks some OO concepts.
>
> Could we avoid for the technical discussion the argument like those above.
> Myself see nothing wrong if something "breaks" some "concepts".
>
The problem is not the breaking of the OO concepts but rather that, by
breaking this concept, you obtain a class hierarchy which is very
difficult to use. The methods are not in the files you expect so you spend
a very long time to find them. Beside, on the efficiency point of view, to
put a method in TH1 that starts by checking nbdim==2 is ridiculous, c++
does it for you if you put the method in TH2 !
> Sometimes it is worth (a head) to prove the earth is not flat
> as everybody knows.
yes but breaking OO concept, here, is ,more or less, equivalent to going
back to "classic and old" imperative programming...
> Of course the good name is a good thing but the code should work
> first.
ok. I agreet bu that does not mean it cannot be improved.
> Let's think TH1 stands for the 1-(base) layer of the H classes why not ?
well..hmmm. do you really think it is something logical, easy to
understand for the beginner ? I don't think so.
-- Vincent
--
Vincent Colin de Verdiere (vincent.colin.de.verdiere@cern.ch)
at work: CERN, division EP, Office 13-1-038, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
tel: (+41) 22 76 72839 fax: (+41) 22 767 9075
http://www-prima.imag.fr/Prima/colin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:50:19 MET