Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #13772

Re: terminology

From	Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: terminology
Date	2012-04-22 01:06 +0200
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<jmveh0$t77$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	<terminology-20120420003700@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <verb-20120422003824@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <jmvdt9$s4e$1@news.albasani.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Jan Burse schrieb:
> But some hard core oponents would say not enough OO-fication
> has been applied. Namely no class Account has be defined.
> If there were a class Account one could simply declare:
>
>      static void checking(Account a)
>
> Or even do it more OO-ish:
>
>      class Account {
>         void checking();
>      }
>
> And everything would be clear. Right?

Oops, the CheckingAccount from the paper is a factory method,
which has a result value. So the above doesn't work. Forget
about it...

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: terminology Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2012-04-22 00:55 +0200
  Re: terminology Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2012-04-22 01:06 +0200

csiph-web