From: Chris Gehlker <canyonrat@...>
Date: 2002-10-01T12:24:32+09:00
Subject: Re: thoughts on typelessness


On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 07:27 PM, Bryan Murphy wrote:

> While I understand your point, I do have to disagree and say that 
> Mixins aren't anything like interfaces coming from my perspective.
> From my perspective, interfaces and/or contracts are a way to 
> unerringly guarantee than an object *ALWAYS* provides specific 
> functionality.


You lost me there, Bryan, perhaps because the only languages that I've 
used interface inheritance in are Java and ObjC and Ruby. But in Java, 
anyway, when I say "implements xyz" I'm free to define xyz any way I 
want as log as the method takes standard arguments. In fact the message 
name is really no more than a hint as to what the method does. How can 
that be a 'contract'?