Thanks for the encouragement.

At 11:47 AM 9/20/01, you wrote:
>I think you are fairly close to its style, but the orientation feels like the
>audience would need substantially more programming as well as mathematical
>background than TLL assumes.  If it's not your aim to emulate TLL's low level
>of prerequisites, then please ignore the preceding comment.

Ideally, I'd like to aim for the same level. In practice, I'll be happy if 
it makes it to where TLL is - which seems to be something recommended as a 
supplement to programming courses, or by professors to their graduate 
students. My wife (a large animal veterinarian, not at all a computer 
person) was able to read the first chapter, except for some rough spots.

>I believe you can build a very worthwhile book on OOP in this style, though
>again I think your approach is slightly different from TLL's persistent
>direct-question-and-answer style (which as you recall begins on the book's 
>very
>first line with, "Is it true that this is an atom?  ATOM").  Your explanations
>in the right-hand column tend toward exposition that has not yet been 
>motivated
>by a question in the left-hand column.

Yes. I'm going to try harder to avoid that. It may be my natural 
pontificating style coming through. Or I may be too eager to get all the 
basics in place (instance variables, etc.) rather than build them question 
by question.

Thanks again.

--
Brian Marick, marick / testing.com
www.testing.com - Software testing services and resources
www.testingcraft.com - Where software testers exchange techniques
www.visibleworkings.com - Adequate understanding of system internals