On Thu, 22 May 2003 16:05:03 -0400 (EDT), diegogomezdeck wrote
> If you put yourself between TWO glasses, the object "image of you" is
> copied several times... isn't it?
> 

i am incapable of understanding your question. why should i put myself 
between two glasses? glasses are objects which are passive and not capable of 
anything except holding liquid and other stuff in case of gravity presence...

> Diego
> 
> > hi. i would like to ask whether some squeaker has ever seen an object
> > which  is capable of copying itself. for example, i have a glass in
> > front of me -  certainly an object - but i have never seen any glass
> > copying itself in front  of me when i say "copy yourself" to it. 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?
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > wouldn't it be more rational to have objects capable of constructing
> > copies  of objects?