[cap-talk] "Composite", was "Same" key

[David Hopwood]

I wrote:
> Charles Landau wrote:
>>At 6:15 PM +0000 2/14/07, David Hopwood wrote:
>>
>>>We seem to be agreed
>>>on what the concepts are, so it's just a matter of deciding between:
>>>
>>>1. Object          Composite
>>>2. Object          Abstraction
>>>3. Atomic object   Object
>>
>>No, I think the choices are:
>>
>>              1                          >1                 >=1
>>1 (MarkM)   Object                   Composite           ?
> 
> The "?" is "Composite".
> 
>>2 (Hopwood) Object or Abstraction    Abstraction         Abstraction
> 
> In row 1, an object can be viewed as a composite.
> In row 2, an object can be viewed as an abstraction.
> In row 3, an atomic object can be viewed as an object.
> 
> I.e. in general, the concept in column "1" can be viewed as an
> instance of the concept in column ">=1". So there is no need to write
> "Object or Abstraction" here.

For clarification, I meant that "Object" is sufficient.

>>3 (Landau)  Atomic object            Composite object    Object

An abstraction with two objects such that one is an interface subset
of the other, is an instance of the ">1" column. I thought that part of
your argument was that you didn't want to call that "composite", since
it is not constructed by composition, narrowly defined.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>