Your edits to Bridge patternEdit

Thank you for your contributions to Bridge pattern, but I was forced to remove them. First of all, code that does not illustrate a bridge pattern should not be in the Bridge pattern article. Second, although a justification for certain things is appropriate on an article's talk page, first-person commentary and a signature does not belong in the actual article. In addition, please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, which is very possibly the most important Wikipedia policy. Saying that a bridge pattern is a "lousy" solution to a problem is your own opinion, not verifiable fact. I realize it isn't easy to fully understand the workings of Wikipedia right away, so I encourage you to read the welcome page and the tutorial. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Thanks. Supadawg (talk contribs) 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about the personal comment style. But not about the removed code. The code is is a slight and very relevant variation of the bridge pattern. Design Patterns does not have an autohritative structure, they will have to be adopted to programming lanugage, specific needs, etc, etc. The description of the bridge pattern says "can use inheritance to separate responsibilities into different classes" notice that it says "can" it does not say "must".

Image:Visual Prolog IDE Screenshot.pngEdit

Im disputing the public domain licence because this is proprietar software. I changed the licence from public domain to non-free fair use. If the author/rightholder of the software agrees with the publishing of the screenshot under a free licence (Public domain or some other licence like gdfl or creative commons) you must forward his written permisson to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (see Wikipedia:OTRS for further information). --Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)