Hi!

Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi Göran -
> 
> Unbelievable. You basically just described the very idea that started 
> this whole traits thing. When Nathanael worked with us at Disney, the 

Ah, interesting. Well, it is not *that* unbelievable given that everyone 
of us probably have had thoughts in these directions over the years.

But it *is* interesting that an idea starting in *object* composition 
ends up being realized as a kind of MI. I wonder how that journey evolved.

> traits direction came out of discussions where we wanted him to think 
> precisely along the lines you're describing. My original thoughts on 
> this matter was that I wanted to have something more like (biological) 
> cells - entities that are made up of smaller things (objects), that have 
> an inside and an outside (made up of other objects instead of 
> abstractions like the interface/implementation distinction), that 
> forward signals (messages) to the appropriate receptors etc.

Right. I now reread the Membrane thing from Ted btw (I read it a while 
back) and yes, a lot is similar, but still different... He talks about 
parts being *very* "aware" of each other (feels slightly odd). He also 
describes the Membrane to "just be a Dictionary" which also feels odd, 
why not a full object?

But yes, interesting - distinguishing "self" from "whole" is 
interesting, although I immediately find it questionable from some 
undefinable "gut feeling". :)

regards, Göran