This sentence is very twisted. Can anyone break it down?

It's not "inversion of control" if the control over whether there's inversion of control is not inverted


It means that a technique doesn't qualify as true "inversion of control" if the control of a specific thing is not also inverted. The specific thing here is the determination of "whether there's inversion of control".

Simply put, IoC has to go all the way into the program's architecture to count (in this author's opinion).

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.