Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

Bob Badour wrote:
>

You are thinking way to much about implementation details that <don't matter>

> James A. Robertson wrote in message <3B8A67F0.CA3FDC42_at_mail.com>...
> >Bob Badour wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since Smalltalk *has* instances that are values (the number
> >> >5 comes mind)
> >
> >This is trickier in Smalltalk. Why? because instances of classes are
> >objects, and classes (and metaclasses) are also objects. The bottom
> >line is that in Smalltalk, <everything> is an object.
>
> I don't see how that changes anything. Classes are instances of metaclasses
> and classes can change over time, which make them variables of metaclasses.
> At any point in time, a class has a metaclass value.
>
> Not everything in Smalltalk is a variable and not everything in Smalltalk is
> a value.
>
> >> Hmmm... I have been looking for Smalltalk's definition of the term
> >> "instance". So far, all of the definitions seem to equate the term
> instance
> >> with the concept of variable:
> >>
> >> From http://www.wi2.uni-erlangen.de/sw/smalltalk/glossary.html
> >>
> >> instance: An object that is a single occurrence of a particular class. An
> >> instance exists in memory or external media in persistent form.
> >
> >Variables in Smalltalk are nothing more than references to some object.
> >That object can be anything
>
> Named variables in Smalltalk are nothing more than references to variables.
> The referenced variables have values, but they cannot *be* values.

-- 
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jarober_at_mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>