Orc In A Spacesuit on 29 Apr 2003 07:51:01 -0000

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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Why we need OO

I haven't yet taken part in the current OO discussion. Here's my response to Rob's original email:

Class: Integer
Inherits from: Number
  * It is an integer.

Point 1:
If we are going to use the same word for something as well as that something's definition, it could lead to problems. I'd rather see a definition of the word "integer" there.

Point 2:
I think you're taking this a bit far. I think that the properties of objects shouldn't be objects as well, but instead be simply values.

I don't know how to say it, but it doesn't seem quite right. I guess, I'm having trouble visualizing things if, say, an integer were to become something else, like a rule or a society or a gnome, as strange as that might be. Such shouldn't ever happen, as long as things are done in a sensical way. But it still feels wrong. Where exactly is the actual number?

Class: List
Inherits from: Concept
* It has any number of members (possibly zero), each of which is a Thingy.

Any nonnegative integral members.

Class: Property
Inherits from: Text
* It describes a feature that any instance of a certain Class, or any of its subclasses, has. * It has a Chutzpah, which is an Integer. The Chutzpah can be explicitly given by putting the number in curly braces in the property's text. If not explicitly given, the Chutzpah is 1.

A "property" is appearently something that a Class might have, that defines things about instances of that class. I think that you should tie the individual properties to their appropriate classes a bit better.

Orc in a Spacesuit

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

spoon-discuss mailing list