28 Feb
2002
28 Feb
'02
4:37 a.m.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, David Simmons wrote:
[snip]
How does one meta-object protocol extensibility for supporting different types of "namespaces"?
I.e., if the answer is not in classes then the design is the result of not thinking in pure OO terms and reflection/meta-object protocol.
[snip]
Not dipping too deeply into the debate, I still wish to ask: Doesn't this rule out prototype (or even wackier) object systems? Purity of OO and *systmaticisty* of OO and *consistency* of the OO are not *exactly* congruent (and its not clear that these all have inherent or strong value).
Or, so it would seem! To me at least.
Cheers, Bijan Parsia.