Re: The Foundation of OO (XDb)
Date: 15 Jun 2002 05:16:13 GMT
Message-ID: <aeeiit$6fv2a$1_at_ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>
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_at_" "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 PoundstoneReceived on Sat Jun 15 2002 - 07:16:13 CEST