I have been giving some thought as to categorizing each section, kind of like how "Design Patterns" are always formated with a consistent set of sections and sub sections. Is this what you mean when you talk about taxonomy?
As for your note about "easy consumption", you are absolutely correct, I showed this to one of the interns we have at work, and he had to ask me alot of questions about various bits of terminology (encapsulation, polymorphism, etc). He is only a first year CS student and has had minimal OO experience, so he had seen the terms before, but was unclear on their meaning. So it seems that i may need to take a step back and define some of the other more fundemental elements of OO first, then move into the later topics.
Thank you much for the comments. I will keep them all in mind. I think today is the day for me to write version 2.0, assuming those pesky paying clients don't bug me :-)
-stvnIn reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Object Terminology
by stvn
in thread Object Terminology
by stvn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |