Hi,

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

imo the most enlightment fact is that the "whole" is NOT an object,
 it is not a composition, and it is not it's contents.
We have it in Smalltalk and it is not the global Smalltalk,
 as a school of fishes is not aSet of Fish instances.

Agree that we all had that kind of reflections during years...
what have we done to promote advances in that direction?

(and... more important to me)
how we measure the results of our efforts?

Ale.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Göran Krampe" <goran at krampe.se>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: How about... something completely 
different?(Re: Re: On traits composition)


> 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
>
>
>