4 ms·
I don't get what you're trying to say. You know the context. You have the whole problem in front of you. The question is about which direction you're going to
by mirekrusin 4y ago
I don't get what you're trying to say.
You know the context. You have the whole problem in front of you. The question is about which direction you're going to solve it.
For "you want a stream of bytes, sequence of messages, unsequenced messages, or priority-ordered messages?" the answer is you probably want type parametrized iterator at this level if you can ask this kind of question.
To put it in other words you put more attention into trying to find underlying composition of algebras in problems than doing adhoc, inlined imperative constructions littered with if statements that you add every time some issue is discovered.
- karmakaze 4y agoAn example of what I'm describing is separation of mechanism and policy, but not specifically in the sense of OS authorization. The policy is where the different contexts are applied and the machanism is free of context but capable of executing it.
- karmakaze 4y agoI didn't understand what this meant when I first read it. Now I see it's basically saying the same thing as I was trying to get across. The "underlying composition of algebras" are the mechanisms and policies with the components being the mechanisms and the differing compositions being the policies chosen when used. If this same pattern can be used for all problems, then you're effectively skipping the step where in my case I would find a partially pre-composed set and make that the interface.