On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns at gmail.com>
wrote:


> To the degree that your conception is object-oriented, in the deeper
> sense, it is not a problem.  Your object(s) know how to persist themselves
> and may be considered to be extensive over that persistence -- it is merely
> that their morphology has changed.
>

Sure, but that's just hiding the issue behind an abstraction. I'm
interested in the mechanics of the change in morphology. If the objects can
persist themselves, great, but what technique do they use?

Are you trying to identify names in a known problem space (e.g. a space
> defined by the limits of the techniques used) or to identify the problem
> space that you're in?  For the latter, if you're going to generalise then
> perhaps you should also wave the specialisation of 'perfect' reproduction.
> So, even more generally, what you seem to describing is a special case of
> morphogenesis in which a 'copy' is made, e.g. lazy evaluation and cached
> computation can be thought of as slices in that process.
>

 I think I'm trying to identify the problem space. "Morphogenesis" looks
like an interesting term. Lazy evaluation and cached computation seem like
opposites sides of the same coin. Do you mean that they are another form of
"copying" that might be considered? I suppose that opens up new methods for
performing the copy - eg, if the data-structure we're copying is a cached
computation, instead of transmitting a description of the data structure,
we might transmit the computation that produced it. Of course, then we
still have the problem of how to accomplish *that*.

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20151229/c2ea92b5/attachment.htm