Talk:Delegation (object-oriented programming)

Old definition

Shouldn't the old definition go under the modern one? Most people don't read more than one page, which would mean only the old definition is read. - September 26th 2005

Good point. Wouter Lievens 10:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third Definition

The third definition, as given in [Taivalsaari, 1996] is missing. Shall I add it? Wouter Lievens 19:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think of it, the definition is equivalent. Wouter Lievens 14:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language Feature example wrong?

I don't get this. If a in class B were a usual field, this in A::foo() would refer to the a object, so you'd get "a.bar" printed. With the delegation language feature, it should be "b.bar", since this still refers to object b. Giese 09:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to understand

This page needs some cleanup work to make it easier to read. I can't understand half of what its talking about. This should be readable to people who have never heard of a delegate. Fresheneesz 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Delegation pattern

This article talks at length about the Delegation pattern, yet Delegation pattern already has its own node. Shouldn't they be merged? --Devnevyn 12:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. This page is not very clear to me even as one who already understands its subject. 76.187.248.215 (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Delegate (.NET)

I am removing the merge proposal, as a delegate object as per .NET terminology is deeply different from the Delegation design pattern presented here. - 62.101.126.215 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]