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

[James A. Donald]

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

David Hopwood wrote:
 > Reading the first ten linked pages, I see nothing to
 > support this assertion. Instead I see that the "GoF"
 > patterns book:
 >
 >   Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable
 >   Object-Oriented Software (Addison-Wesley
 >   Professional Computing Series), 1995 Erich Gamma,
 >   Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, John Vlissides ISBN
 >   0201633612 or 978-0201633610
 >
 > is very influential, and that its usage of *several
 > different* terms for composites has been slavishly
 > copied in numerous places:
 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns>
 > contains no uses of "object" to refer to composites.

You are deluded:  The web page you cite tells us:
	"The authors further distinguish between
	'aggregation', where one object 'has' or 'is
	part of' another object . . ."

So according to GoF, objects can be aggregates.  GoF
terminology has become standard, has become *the*
standard.

Deviating from that excellent standard is bound to
confuse people.

And in practice people who base their terminology on GoF
refer to an object that provides references to objects
that are part of it as an aggregate object, and an
object that provides no such references as an atomic
object, and to both of kinds of objects as just plain
objects.

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      K43H3xNvc8iHlsVkdoyyiBh0Rkq70wKgiDfelRnK
      4wtkCAYdARN7+Ed1Uz/GPpd8OSXr91T0ntiU7rSlA