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

[Charles Landau]

At 4:45 AM +0000 2/16/07, David Hopwood wrote:
>At risk of repeating myself, analysing an object as a composite/abstraction
>is useful because, for a large proportion of uses, the client neither knows
>nor cares whether the object depends on additional hidden objects. To require
>that there not be hidden objects would be an overspecification.

That is exactly why there should be a term for "a set of one or more 
related atomic objects".

My dictionary says a "composite" is "a thing made up of several 
parts". I'm sorry, "composite" just doesn't work for "one or more 
parts". You really seem to be following Lewis Carroll here: `When I 
use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means 
just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'