Matt Benson wrote:
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Benson wrote:
To be absolutely clear, no, Clone would no longer extend UE.
Excellent !
Peter.
On reviewing the code I am now seeing why I extended UE; it contains a lot of code, as I'm sure you know, for making these element substitutions work. Going with the ProxyElement (PE) concept, PE would be a copy of UE with makeObject() declared as abstract (probably removing the UE parameter). Do we move UE's code and have it extend PE? If not, why?
This would be quite hard I think.
From a nomenclature
standpoint, I don't know that ProxyElement really
captures the concept any better than UnknownElement
does to start with. What I am saying is that,
controversy over Clone's right to exist aside ( ;) ),
creating the distinction that Clone is not a UE is
basically an exercise in refactoring for type
distinctions that I'm not sure are warranted/have been
properly defined. And your thoughts?
Peter
-Matt
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
