June 30, 2015
11:10 a.m.
:) my question was to check if we can change it :) Le 30/6/15 11:10, Max Leske a écrit : >> On 30 Jun 2015, at 11:00, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 28/6/15 19:00, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit : >>>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 17:59, Max Leske <maxleske@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 17:22, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi guys >>>>> >>>>> is there a real reason for Stack being a subclass of LinkedLink? >>>> 1. You donât need to adjust an internal data structure (grow, shrink, move, sort) to update the stack but only move references. >> But it is used in practice? >> Because Stack could use a LinkedList and you get the same benefits and not stupid methods that do not make sense for Stack. > agreed. > >>>> 2. The interface is pretty similar >> No there are not :) >> Stack is push pop top not insert after:..... >> or this is a strange stack. > What I meant was: Linked list provides an interface that allows for stack operations. Not that the naming conventions are the same. > >>> 3. It is an implementation detail/technique, it is indeed not as if Stack is-a LinkedList (from that point of view it is confusing) >> What I mean is that this is not good to have subclassing when we can use subclassing. >> We remove the fact that Dictionary is a subclass of Set for this reason. >> > You asked for reasons. I didnât say they were *good* reasons :) > >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>> >> > >