[self-interest] A question about method slots

Michael Paap 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):
> http://bibliography.selflanguage.org/parents-shared-parts.html
> 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
> wrong.

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 mailing list