On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0500, Jordan Kanter wrote: > I was having that problem too going over S09. It seems like we need to get > the glossary together like Uri was saying that we can have a controlled > language for creating the documents. If we dont have one already, I suggest > we start one.
Actually, I don't think we disagree on terminology (nor do the synopses). The problem is that the types, as listed, don't fully fit the terminology. This is to be expected, since we haven't fully fleshed out the type tree yet. That's why I said that Container might not be as real as it sounds. It could just be a role, since many "container-like things" aren't going to fall neatly into the Object -> Container -> Array/Hash type tree. Buf is probably the best example of this, as a Buf is really a sort of scalar with containerish behavior. Something like, "class Buf is Scalar, does Container". Which really blows some assumptions that I'm willing to bet many people will make. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
