Re: [spoon-discuss] Why we need OO

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:28:43AM -0500, Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
> I'm thinking that we go halfway here.  Rather than making everything a part 
> of the class system, we break it into these groups, and not have the basic 
> system itself OO, and instead define the following:
 
> Classes, which may be children of other Classes.
> Objects, which is a member of a Class(es).

But there's no reason a Class shouldn't be an Object itself, as in the
system I had, right?

> Properties, which Objects have, and can be Number, Text, Reference, or a 
> list of one of those.

Call them something besides properties; I'm already using that word
quite fundamentally in my system. "Attributes", possibly.

> Values, which are the states that Properties have.
But then you've just defined Number, Text, Reference, and List as
subtypes of Values, which I have anyway.

> Events, which are things that happen, and may cause other events to happen 
> when they occur.
> Actions, which are things that Objects may do, perhaps choosing other 
> Objects when they do so.  Taking an Action is an Event.
Therefore, an Action is a subtype of Event.

I could have these all be separate systems, but why?
-- 
Rob Speer

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