Re: Getting rid of "Void"?

Peter Gummer wrote:
 >
 > Thomas Beale wrote:
 > > Re: the Hoare paper, it only applies to generic computing 
structures, it
 > > does not apply conveniently to business objects, which are also
 > > expressed in the same computing languages. This is because business
 > > objects have many 'optional' elements, and to make models of them in a
 > > Void-less way would create a horrible and unusable type model. I agree
 > > that the base libraries and other similar computing libraries should be
 > > Void-safe, but large application systems will have many business
 > > objects, for which there is no hope of being Void-safe. Realistic
 > > systems will have to allow both kinds of libraries.
 > >
 >
 > I think you're confusing the term "void-safe" with "void-less", Thomas.
 > A system may be void-safe while still using "void" extensively.
 >

I did mean to say void-safe. The problem remains: class models, seen as 
classificatory ontologies of real world concepts (i.e. what we usually 
call business objects) can't easily be made void-safe because the 
classifications (things such as PERSON, ACCOUNT) are generally quite 
broad, and encompass many variations where certain attributes may be 
void, more or less arbitrarily.

- thomas beale

------------------------------------