From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-07-05T10:27:13+09:00
Subject: Re: self_parent

well what would be a good name if not self_parent? i see how the parent
part might imply the superclass. at first i was just using the word
"parent" but that has the same problem and also parent is a common
symbol used in other programs, so i used the prefix self_ so as not to
cause code breaking. how about self_creator?  don't really like the
sound of that. self_instantiator? what would you call this exact
relationship anyway? is ther an academic/technical term for it?

~transami

On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 19:03, David Alan Black wrote:
> Hello --
> 
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Sean Russell wrote:
> 
> > David Alan Black wrote:
> >
> > > REXML is specifically modeling the parent/child relationships of XML
> > > in that class, though (I think).  That's different from a
> > > language-level (I mean Ruby, not XML) description of one object as the
> > > "parent" of another because the second object is created by a method
> > > of the first object.
> >
> > Yes.  A REXML parent/child relationship has nothing to do with object
> > inheritance, but rather describes a contains/contained by relationship.
> 
> Moreover, the notion of "self" at the time of object creation as the
> parent of the created object is actually also not related to
> object inheritance -- which I think is part of what's potentially
> confusing about it, though even with renaming the problems with
> coupling and dependencies would remain.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> David Alan Black
> home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
> work: blackdav@shu.edu
> Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
> 
> 
-- 
~transami

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
 temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
	-- Benjamin Franklin