--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
> >To be absolutely clear, no, Clone would no longer
> >extend UE.
> >
> >
> Excellent !
>
> Peter.
On reviewing the code I am now seeing why I extended
UE; it contains a lot of code, as I'm sure you know,
for making these element substitutions work. Going
with the ProxyElement (PE) concept, PE would be a copy
of UE with makeObject() declared as abstract (probably
removing the UE parameter). Do we move UE's code and
have it extend PE? If not, why? From a nomenclature
standpoint, I don't know that ProxyElement really
captures the concept any better than UnknownElement
does to start with. What I am saying is that,
controversy over Clone's right to exist aside ( ;) ),
creating the distinction that Clone is not a UE is
basically an exercise in refactoring for type
distinctions that I'm not sure are warranted/have been
properly defined. And your thoughts?
-Matt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
