5 ms·
Excellent example, thank you. Edit: To answer your question, the set of all public methods could be seen as 1, but not the only, interpretation of the function
by ipnon 6y ago
Excellent example, thank you.
Edit: To answer your question, the set of all public methods could be seen as 1, but not the only, interpretation of the functional interface.
- uryga 6y agothank you :) i hope i didn't hijack the thread! but i just love sharing stuff like this > the set of all public methods could be seen as 1, but not the only, interpretation of the functional interface. could you describe another interpretation? "the set of public methods"¹ is the only thing i can think of when i hear about an object's "functional interface". it could be a terminology issue though – i'm reading "functional interface" in a general sort of way, but i could imagine it having some specific definition in OO theory. --- ¹ or recognized messages, in a more smalltalk-ish context
- ipnon 6y agoThe other interpretation has slipped my mind since yesterday, sorry mate. I do think it's an interesting idea that I now see I have no formal understanding of. Cheers.
- uryga 6y agoshame! cheers :) PS. if you're interested in weird perspectives on this, you might find Coinduction (and "codata") interesting. from wikipedia: > Informally, rather than defining a function by pattern-matching on each of the inductive constructors, one defines each of the "destructors" or "observers" over the function result. it's a deep rabbit hole, but i remember it being applied OOP-ish things – "destructors" would roughly correspond to exposed methods.