Re: [spoon-discuss] Why we need OO

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> One wonders if there might be a better way to phrase the last sentence 
> - I'd prefer not to encourage saying, "an Gnome" or "a athame".

It shouldn't matter. Should a reference to an object be invalid if it
uses the wrong article? What if we were to end up with a class called
"Historian" where nobody agrees on the article?

> One wonders if "Object" would make more sense here than later...

Things that will be under Object are the things we already think of as
objects.

> I'm not sure I like that wording... a Win in my possession, or a rule 
> that gives me absolute power, are both possible Concepts... this 
> suggests that they both exist already.

Hmm. I do need to be careful there. Perhaps another property, saying
that Concepts are only used by the game, and cannot affect the game
themselves.

> Perhaps, should some distinction be made between class Text (just a 
> block of text) and class Document (an official game document such as a 
> rule, charter, or proposal)?

A Document would be an Object, containing a value of class Text.

> Gnomes are Objects; their existence is tracked by the Minister of 
> Gnomes and the Minister of the Ordinance Survey, neither of whom is 
> necessarily the Administrator.

It doesn't say *only* the Administrator. Dave is aware that gnomes
exist.

> Many of these definitions have no ClassFeatures, and some don't have 
> Properties.

The list has zero members, then. That's allowed.

-- 
Rob Speer

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