[cap-talk] ... enforcement - hope? Capabilities as clumsy, not

[marcs]

> The most accurate way to state the design principle is 
> something like: 
> "An object must not be polymorphic with another object that provides 
> less authority."

I could probably twist dean's arm and get him to rephrase this, "an object
must not be polymorphic with another object that provides different
authority". At which point I'd like this definition a lot. It even seems to
support my current strategy for dealing with it, i.e., give them different
guards (actually, give them different stamps, tested with different guards),
which breaks the polymorphism.

> 
> As for Marcs complaint, I think it is just a terminology issue. 
> Different languages have different ways of creating polymorphism, and 
> some don't use inheritance. I think it is still correct to 
> use the term 
> "subclass" even if polymorphism is implemented without using 
> inheritance.

Well...the way of stating it at the top, that doesn't use the term
"subclass", I find to be clearer, and easier for me to agree with. This
principle probably belongs in Walnut some place, and that is the form I will
probably use.


--marcs