Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Proposal: base class

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/20/03 at 12:34 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 12:25  PM, Glotmorf wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/03 at 11:01 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 19, 2003, at 03:57  PM, Glotmorf wrote:
>>>
>>>> {{ _We Got Class Now!_
>>>>
>>>> Create the following 2GC:
>>>>
>>>> {{ _Base_
>>>>
>>>> Inherits from: (none)
>>>>
>>>> Properties: (none)
>>>>
>>>> Methods:
>>>>
>>>> - Create: Create a 2GO that inherits from Base 2GC.
>>>>
>>>> - Destroy: The 2GO ceases to exist.
>>>>
>>>> }}
>>>>
>>>> }}
>>>
>>> What exactly is the objective of 2GCs?
>>
>> Two objectives.  One is to provide inheritance to 2GOs, so that you
>> can declare a type of object without creating the particular object.
>> The other is to provide inheritance to other 2GCs, so that you may
>> have objects of a general type, but some special-case objects that are
>> like the general type but different.
>>
>> You can create a grid object class, then a gnome class that inherits
>> from that, then a sheep gnome class that inherits from that, then
>> actual individual sheep gnomes.
>
>But we have that already. We've got a definition for generic 'Grid
>Objects'; Gnomes are specified by the rules to be a type of Grid
>Object; sheep gnomes are specified by the rules to be a type of gnome;
>individual sheep gnomes are instances of the type defined in the sheep
>gnome rule.

Yes, but those things are embedded in the ruleset.  2GCs would be in their own separate set, making the ruleset simpler and objects and their definitions grouped together.

Thought we talked about this...?

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss