Daniel Lepage on 21 Apr 2003 16:43:01 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 03:22  PM, Glotmorf wrote:

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...?

Yes, but when I sat down to try and rewrite a few objects as 2GCs, I realized that I was basically just copying right out of the rule; we might as well just store that rule somewhere else.

--
Wonko

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