copy yourself ?
jan ziak
ziakjan at host.sk
Thu May 22 21:26:05 UTC 2003
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?
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|