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

[David Hopwood]

David Hopwood wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
> 
>>>What composite does the set of zero objects implement? If there were some
>>>technical advantage in including the null set, that would be fine, but I
>>>don't see any.
>>
>>I am thinking in terms of descriptions like
>>
>>    Say Alice is one of Bob's clients. Let's describe the set of all of
>>    Bob's other clients as the composite Rest.
> 
> Oh. Right. You really do mean a composite to allow an *arbitrary* set of objects.
> 
> In that case I think that "composite" is a *highly* misleading name.
> 
> I suggest something like "group" instead. Then an "abstraction" would be a
> special case of a group, where all the objects in the group share state and
> are working together to provide some specific functionality.

I withdraw the suggestions of "group" and "abstraction", and propose
"object-group" and "object-abstraction" instead.

This should address the point about the word "abstraction" being too general,
which would also apply to "group".

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