[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I agree completely.
It's a hysterical articfact.
At 1:11 PM 5/26/94 +0100, Ivan Moore wrote:
>Why are all the traits objects in the 'traits' object? (that's not very clear,
>is it. I'll try again) Why *is* there a 'traits' object?
>Why not just get the traits from the appropriate prototype?
>It seems un-object-oriented to put traits together just because they
>are all traits. eg. 'traits window' doesn't have much to do with 'traits set',
>so why should they be 'in' the same object? (Ignoring the objects used for
>splitting them into sub-groupings). It seems like a 'functional' sort
>of decomposition rather than an object-oriented one (if that makes sense).
>Surely 'window traits' (or 'window parent' or 'window class' (sorry about that
>- only joking :-) or 'window sharedBehavior' or anything else that asks a
>prototype for its traits is better. The prototypes are the 'important' objects
>- aren't they?
>I realise that prototypes are going to have to be 'in' the same object (in some
>sense - the lobby) in order to be able to use them - but this is inevitable.