copy yourself ?
arf_arf69
arf_arf69 at yahoo.com
Sat May 24 06:15:25 UTC 2003
Jan, I believe that Diego means sheets of glass or possibly mirrors.
Do not forget that not all the people use english as their native
language.
regards
--- In squeak at yahoogroups.com, "jan ziak" <ziakjan at h...> wrote:
> 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
|