Re: [spoon-discuss] Why we need OO

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:19:11AM -0400, bd wrote:
> Okay, either 'Root' or 'Class' (note the uppercase). I just think 'Thingy' 
> is... bad.

There's already a Class class. It defines the properties that classes
have. Every class is an instance of it. Most instances will not in fact
be classes themselves.

Again, the name of a class describes what its derived objects are, not
what the class itself is. Here are some examples of Thingies:

* the number 17
* my last spoon-business post
* the 'b' at the end of my name
* Unbridled Hostility
* failing diplomacy with Thermodynomic
* me
* you
* a Ford Prefect Gnome

In fact, the first five are Concepts as well. The last three should be
defined as Objects eventually. But all of them are Thingies, because
they exist in some form within the game. Would you prefer that they
should all be called Roots?

I'll consider "Thing" instead of "Thingy", but I wanted to capture the
vagueness of that class and the fact that anything at all can be in it.
I don't want to rename "Object", since this is what people are almost
always thinking of when they say "object". If I call the root class
Object, then someone may make a rule involving "an object" and suddenly
the number 3 is able to do stuff.

-- 
Rob Speer

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