[#4858] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — noreply@...

Bugs item #1883, was opened at 2005-05-06 14:55

21 messages 2005/05/06
[#4862] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/05/07

Hi,

[#4865] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2005/05/07

[#4868] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — nobu.nokada@... 2005/05/07

Hi,

[#5053] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2005/05/19

Hi,

[#5056] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...> 2005/05/19

On 5/19/05, Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#4874] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>

Hello all,

31 messages 2005/05/10
[#4879] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Pit Capitain <pit@...> 2005/05/11

Ilias Lazaridis schrieb:

[#4883] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

Pit Capitain wrote:

[#4884] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2005/05/12

[#4888] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

Ryan Davis wrote:

[#4889] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — ES <ruby-ml@...> 2005/05/12

[#4890] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

ES wrote:

[#4891] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Alexander Kellett <ruby-lists@...> 2005/05/12

On May 12, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

[#4911] Pointless argc check in Array#select — noreply@...

Patches item #1900, was opened at 2005-05-12 09:33

11 messages 2005/05/12

[#4919] - Hierarchical/Modular Directory Structure — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>

The source-code structure should be simplified, lowering barriers for

20 messages 2005/05/12

Re: [ ruby-Patches-1939 ] Pathname, totally revamped

From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2005-05-28 18:44:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #5120
Wrote Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca>, on Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:28:28AM +0900:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Sam Roberts wrote:
> >Sometimes called Liskov substitution principle.
> >>never override any method in a subclass, because hey, people might not
> >>expect different behavior.
> >You derive to override implementation, not behaviour.
> 
> So, in short, Liskov's substitution principle can be written:
> 
>   (SubPre -> SubPost) -> (SuperPre -> SuperPost)
> 
> again as a logical implication.
> 
> Does that sound accurate?

Uhm, well, IMHO, thats so abstract its hard to know if its accurate,
maybe it could be argued both ways. :-)

My understanding is that Liskov means:

  If you have a program using an X, and Y is-a X, then you can use Y
  instead of X and it will "work", for some definition of work...

Thats kindof vague, but the idea is pretty clear. You can make a class
that is attached to a string in a DB record, or  that encapsulates the
data in a file, or uses the Boehm rope data structure, or ..., and if
you can use them in an API that expects a String, and it works, then
they are Liskov substituteable for a String.

Pragmatically, its likely that any particular implementation may work in
some cases, but not in others... If it's a read-only file, any attempt
at doing a desctructive operation is going to fail, and code that
assumes that a String that is not frozen is modifiable will find that
this hypothetical file-as-String class is not Liskov substitutable for a
String.

Design is still partially a matter of taste, not exact rules, isn't it?

Cheers,
Sam


In This Thread