substitution principle

8.21: adda/oop/type/substitution principle:
. when a parameter is type rectangle,
then it can be assigned any rectangle
including a square;
because, a square is rectangular .
. classic oop has had a problem with that,
so, how do we sort out our subtypes
from this jumble of subclass confusion?
[11.9:
. the solution I've come up with
is known as Changing The Language:
ie, rather than assume a type.tag is constant;
we assert that related types
are expected to have a common surtype;
eg, for a var constrained to Number.type,
it will have a constant surtype.tag;
but, it will also have a modifiable subtype.tag,
that can vary within {N,Z,Q,R,C}
(unsigned, int, quotient, real, complex).
. a var constraint can be a subtype too:
eg, for a var constrained to Real,
it can only vary in {N,Z,Q,R};
ie, the subtypes whose domains are
subsets of Real's domain .
. and, as usual for non-oop,
if a var is constrained to a definite type, such as float32,
then both the surtype and subtype
are going to be constant
(hence the obj will be untagged);
but, since the surtype is Number,
and float32 is understood to be a subtype of Real,
you can ask for (float32 + int)
and multi-dispatching will still work .]
. in order to be a subtype of rectangle,
an object that is tagged as being a square
has got to be re-taggable as non-square
in the event that the rectangle interface
asks it to modify itself;
ie, a type that inherits from rectangle
and then adds the constraint
that it be a square too -- forever --
has decided to nix support for type compatability,
which contradicts the idea of inheritance .
. to be a subtype (ie, support type compatability)
the inheritance needs to work like this:
my subtype named square
has the properties of the inherited rectangle
but includes the constraint width = height .
. if you ask me to break that constraint,
then I'll re-type.tag myself as a rectangle
(rectangular but not square).
[11.9: corrollary:
. if a var is constrained to be a square,
then the only rectangle it can be assigned to
is an unmodifiable one;
being assigned to a modifiable rectangle,
could potentially violate the type constraint,
and should result in a compile-time warning .
. this isn't a fatal error though;
because, the user could expect that
squares will grow in only a square way,
-- as would be the case for doublemy(rectangle) --
or the user may want to handle the exception
by trying another algorithm;
therefore, the warning should remind the users,
that they appear to be depending on
either having exceptions handle
the type.constraint.error,
or having the rectangle operation
not violate a square's subtype.constraint .]

alloc-init pattern's rationale

1.23: sci,bk.adda/lang"obj'c/alloc-init pattern's rationale:
. in {Buck, Yacktman}`Cocoa Design Patterns
they explain the rational for separating init from alloc;
eg, x`= NSString`alloc`init .
. alloc can be a class function because
the mem requirements are known from
the interface ivars list defined by
self and self's superclasses .
. alloc works something like malloc,
only it is accepting a list of types
and converting them into the bytes count
that the malloc needs .

. my first reaction to this convention was:
how would you know what to allocate
until you see what there is to init?
these functions should indeed be separate;
but, the init should be calling the alloc,
rather than init being handed alloc's result by parameter .

. one continuing important reason for this convention
is communicating to client who it is that should be
doing the retains:
. the convention is that convenience methods are
using your autorelease pool .
. using the alloc init is your sign that
you own it (you need to auto/release it yourself )

. other than that, I've seen no intrinsic need for it;
... but, how does inheritance complicate things?

. it looks like the main reason is legacy code:
the Cocoa library can't maintain backward compatibility
unless you follow this convention .

. the main reason alloc was a class method,
was that init should be an instance method
but alloc (the source of the instance)
would have to be from a class method
because instance methods work on instances,
so the alloc couldn't be an instance method .
. I'm not sure whether {Buck, Yacktman} said that;
however, some oop evangelist did say that,
and I'd like to show next,
why I don't think it's true .

[1.31: 1.23:
. the usual oop idioms very much depend on
the root object being a pointer to heap node;
-- where that pointer that is the same size
across all objects --
and that pointer exists even before alloc is called .
 . what the object really needs in order to have
 access to some instance var's,
 is to belong to some specific class;
 and,  it could get this either by
 sending an init msg to the specific class it wants
 or by letting the init's param decide on a class,
 based upon the type of initial value assigned
 (for example, when the compiler gets a value literal,
 it can infer a type class from that:
 "(abc) is a string
 123 is a number
 (1,2,3) is an array of number
 (1, "(abc)) is a record in (number, string).
 ) . init figures out what it needs,
 and then calls an alloc to help with that .
 . if the client has a preference for some alloc technique
 that could be a param  of the init,
 initWith (source, allocWith: style ) .]