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

[David Hopwood]

Karp, Alan H wrote:
> I've been reading this discussion with interest since MarkM and I
> periodically argue over what an object is.

I would be surprised if that was what you were doing. You almost certainly
are only arguing over what should be *called* an "object".

That is, we all agree that there are two concepts in capability systems,
call them 'foo' and 'bar', such that:

 - the system semantics are only directly defined in terms of 'foos',
 - a capability designates and grants permission to invoke a 'foo',
 - descriptions of the system's behaviour can involve 'bars', such that:
 - one or more 'foos' implement each 'bar',
 - only some of the 'foos' that implement a given 'bar' are visible to
   any particular client of the 'bar'.

At least, I'm assuming we agree on that. Do we?

> To me, an object encapsulates state and methods.  A facet is a
> particular view of that state and those methods.

Why do you start with, "To me, an object ...", rather than first agreeing on
the concepts, and then agreeing on what the concepts should be called?

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