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

[James A. Donald]

     --
David Hopwood:
 > >  - use "object", and accept that this is
 > >  inconsistent with the majority of current and
 > >  historical usage in object-based systems, going
 > >  back to 1965.

Toby Murray wrote:
 > I've been following this discussion but can't remember
 > seeing anything about object meaning >=1 atomic
 > objects being inconsistent with historical and current
 > usage in object-based systems. Sorry if I'm asking for
 > evidence that has already been presented, but could
 > you give some examples?

Google, and you will find people continually using the
word "object" to refer to both atomic objects, and to an
object that returns references to some of its interior
objects.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=pattern+aggregate+object>.

David Hopwood's usage is new, unusual, non standard, and
not English.

The standard and long established usage is that an
aggregate object is an object that exposes references to
some of its interior objects, and an atomic object is an
object does not - but both of them are objects.

Good practice is to avoid exposing references to
interior objects unless genuinely needed - aggregated
objects are complex, and one should avoid unnecessary
complexity.

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      Frit6VTS73BbT28M7jLC6hwXQ5+9/wgZyozr6pk6
      42zBMjy1YwgOeBp928MzX4nUTYKbKlLnn8uYIt9Yt