| Rob Speer on 28 Apr 2003 01:45:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Why we need OO |
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:02:09PM -0400, bd wrote: > Wait - why would we have an Instance of Thingy? I thought it was a base class, > like Object in java? Right, nothing should actually be an instance of the root class directly. I'm just saying what I would expect a class named "RootClass" to be - it would not be the root class, it would be a subtype of Class containing things which are the root class. Naming the root class "RootClass" is like naming the class which Gnomes are instances of "ClassWhichGnomesAreInstancesOf". The name shouldn't describe what the class is, but what its instances (and instances of its subclasses) are. -- Rob Speer _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss