|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcelerier
1754 days ago
|
|
|
> That it long predates OO demonstrates it is not OO. This does not make any sense. People did not wait until someone gave a name to the rule-of-three to use it, and that does not make these uses any less rule-of-three than the ones that occured post-naming. |
|
|