Re: The Foundation of OO (XDb)

jraustin1_at_hotmail.com (James) wrote:
>> > > "The Self language doesn't have any classes. When we want a new
>> > > object, we find an existing one and copy it. We can then change the
>> > > copy, safe in the knowledge that we have not affected anything
>> > > else."
>> >
>> > For the freedom of making isolated copies of an object,
>> > the loss of property and method inheritance seems costly in the
>> > general case, but may be advantages in certain circumstances, i think.
>>
>> Prototype-based languages, such as Self and Cecil, allow property and
>> method inheritance.
>
> I guess a copy has a reference back to it class then?
> Or maybe our definition of class is different.

No, it looks like you didn't read the quote. Try looking again. In case you can't see it up above, let me reiterate:

  "The Self language doesn't have any classes."

There being no such thing as a class, there can't be a reference back to something that does not exist, such as a class.

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
"My mom said she learned how to swim. Someone took her out in the lake
and threw  her off  the boat. That's  how she  learned how to  swim. I
said, 'Mom, they  weren't trying to teach you how  to swim.' " 
-- Paula Poundstone