| bd on 28 Apr 2003 10:20:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Why we need OO |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 April 2003 09:44 pm, Rob Speer wrote: > 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. Okay, either 'Root' or 'Class' (note the uppercase). I just think 'Thingy' is... bad. - -- bd login: yes password: I don't know, please tell me password is incorrect login: yes password: incorrect -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+rQAfx533NjVSos4RAu5nAKCyxM1msX0ZfHEx1qS1cqywYlwp9wCgsfUZ mR95U7QcBoz6cuSq18kYRDk= =yAHC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss