another enjoying text you have written below. but, you have to make a 
decission: either you will understand each word as such, unconnected and 
meaningless, or you will try to understand the text in the same way as other 
people on this list do. you choose.

if you choose to consider the words as such, then do not write to this 
mailing list anymore because you cannot help me, them nor you.


On Thu, 22 May 2003 22:15:15 +0000, Sean Charles wrote
> On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 08:33 PM, jan ziak wrote:
> 
> > hi. i would like to ask whether some squeaker has ever seen an object 
> > which
> > is capable of copying itself.
> Yes I have but I was incredibly dunk at the time.
> 
> > for example, i have a glass in front of me -
> Is it empty?
> 
> > certainly an object - but i have never seen any glass copying itself in 
> > front
> > of me when i say "copy yourself" to it.
> Do you speak fluent Glassish? If not, forget it. I have tried this 
> also with paper money and it doesn't work either. Why waste time 
> with glasses ;-) And perhaps they are shy and on;y do it when nobody 
> is around?  if a tree falls down in the forest and nobody is around 
> to hear it, does it still make a sound and does my wife still think 
> its all my fault anyway?
> 
> >  in contrary, i have only seen people
> > or machines capable of copying a glass. the point is that i do not believe
> > that any object could copy itself. even DNA which is said to have 
> > replicating
> > capabilities does not replicate itself as such, but requires a niche 
> > capable
> > of replicating it. so why, in smalltalk, almost every object can copy 
> > itself
> > when i send a message to it - it seems absurd to me. doesn't it also to 
> > you?
> >
> Wow, you draw some heavy parallels here dude. Getting real, if you 
> wanted an exact copy of an object then, assuming the object cannot 
> do it, how do *you* propose that we could do it? A massive factory 
> method that knows about all objects, even those not written yet?
> 
> It seems entirely practicable to me to ask an object to spew forth 
> another one of itself, after all, it 'knows' what baggage it carries 
> and what to do to perform the 'cell division'. My toes is I-ching.
> 
> > a second problem is that the copying process depends on particularities of
> > situation in which someone or something want's to copy an object. copying 
> > is
> > context dependent. so why has every object in smalltalk only one method 
> > for
> > copying (well it has three types of copy-methods but the point is that the
> > number and meaning of them fixed).
> >
> A copy is a copy, so why have more than one method unless some 
> 'other copy'  produces a slightly different copy. Then it's not a 
> copy is it?!..debate. ..
> 
> > wouldn't it be more rational to have objects capable of constructing 
> > copies
> > of objects?
> 
> And what you you do if you wanted to copy *one of those object 
> copying classes* then? Where do you stop creating things to copy 
> things to copy things to copy things....