[self-interest] A question about method slots
michael at mpaap.de
Mon Mar 10 23:06:24 UTC 2014
Am 10.03.2014 23:20, schrieb Jecel Assumpcao Jr.:
> I am pretty sure David is saying that the statement is wrong.
Ok. For me, the "no" was placed in a way, that made it's meaning ambigeous.
> And people often look at
> the title "Parents are Shared Parts: Inheritance and Encapsulation in
> Self" by Craig Chambers, David Ungar, Bay-Wei Chang and Urs Hölzle (Lisp
> and Symbolic Computation 4(3), Kluwer Academic Publishers, June, 1991):
> without reading the actual paper (and often not even the abstract) and
> it confirms their idea that Self uses the Lieberman differential
> prototype model.
I see the point. But to draw this conclusion from the title is a bit
strange indeed (I did read the whole paper).
> In short: it is reasonable that people think that in Self "if you clone
> an object, the original becomes the parent of the clone." but they are
Ok, thank you for the clarification. That's what i thought, but after
the surprising (for me) solution of my question with reference to
copying of method slots, it seemed possible, that the statement about
clones/parents could be true, although my observation told me the opposite.
More information about the Self-interest