Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!gatech!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bader+ From: bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Philosophy in designing C++ Message-ID: Date: 31 Dec 88 06:50:13 GMT References: <466@aber-cs.UUCP>, <9281@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 14 In-Reply-To: <9281@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) writes: > IMHO, the design of C++ has many parallels to designing a class within C++. > Think of the language definition as the class interface and the compiler as the > implementation of the class. The class definition should not depend on the > class implementation; the metaphor should also hold for the language design. In practice, you just can't get away with that all the time. Sometimes nice interfaces prove to be horribly inefficient to implement (Look at X [the window system]). I always try and keep possible implementations (just vague sketches) in mind when thinking about the interface, so I don't end up having to redefining the interface to make it implementable... -Miles