Sounds like we want objects *and* classes to support: static_attribs - which are defined at compile time and accessed by offset probably stored in an array.
dynamic_attribs - which come and go at run time and are generally accessed by name and likely stored in a hash. -- Jonathan Sillito > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: January 15, 2003 12:41 PM > To: Dan Sugalski > Cc: Gopal V; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Objects, finally (try 1) > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:17:17AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > In that case they'd correspond to our properties, and I can already > > feel a massive terminology disconnect looming. Maybe we should rename > > properties and attributes to frobs and thingies, just so there's no > > overlap. :( > > We could call them houses and hotels - you'd only be allowed attributes > after you had 4 properties, and if you want to mortgage, er serialise the > object you'd have to hand them all back to the bank, er GC system. > > Mmm. Maybe that's taking the analogy well beyond breaking point. > > I've had a look in a thesaurus for words similar to property and > attribute, > and I can't see much that's good. "idiosyncrasy" is a nice word, > but it's 6 > syllables, and hard to spell. "satellite" seems quite good for objects and > "stuff" that are hangers-on, as does "chattels". I quite liked the idea of > "virtue" for a quality, although I'm not sure if Larry would sanction PMCs > having vices as well :-) > > The downside of finding completely new names for these two > concepts is that > everyone would have to learn what they meant. The upside is that > there would > be no confusion with every other language's contradictory definitions. > > Nicholas Clark >
