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?