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

[Sandro Magi]

Since MarkM already describes the objects as a set, why not just stick
with the standard "set" terminology? Or is "set" perhaps too easily
confused with a set collection object?

Sandro


David Hopwood wrote:
> 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".
>