Comments on: Explicit interface implementation visibility in C#

By: Victor Sergienko

Victor Sergienko — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:59:27 +0000

John, generally, I’d appreciate if you were more polite.
I clearly see that you didn’t read the post attentively: I state that it is an explicit implementation and gave a descrition to it.
Same about closures: did you see the words “Please note variables visibility scope”? This is the essence of the post’s message, and it is clearly identified.

By: Victor Sergienko

Victor Sergienko — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:56:25 +0000

John,
You must have meant this one in first comment: http://victorsergienko.com/cs-java-closures/

If you have something to argue against the definition “closure is a function that is evaluated in an environment containing one or more bound variables. When called, the function can access these variables”, I’d gladly hear it, or you can argue against it on Wikipeia discussion page.

By: Victor Sergienko

Victor Sergienko — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:46:32 +0000

Sorry John, “Interfaces is not something about subtypes” is only your idea, and it looks very strange to me.

If you’re a Lisp guy, then “SICP” must be some kind of authoroty to you. Please see chapter 2, on data. As for me, it clearly defines data type as a set of values and (nb) operations.
If an operation of that type can be applied to object, it is of that type. This means .NET interfaces are absolutely data types.

By: John

John — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:32:55 +0000

Guy,
try to study .NET Framework first.

You are using explicit interface implementation, look here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288461(VS.71).aspx

P.S. Interfaces is not something about subtypes, so
Liskov principle is not applicable. Bu-ga-ga!

By: John

John — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:13:59 +0000

Usually this is called functor and function application, mapping (Lisp). Closure is usually something else