On 11/12/17 00:40, boB Stepp wrote: > I own this book, too. I'll insert the portions of the text that I > believe the OP is referring to.
Thanks for the clarification Bob. >>> composition is aggregation* > > On page 18 the author goes on to use a chess set as an example... > > He continues in the next paragraph: > > ... an aggregate relationship makes more sense. Also keep in mind > that composition is aggregation; aggregation is simply a more general > form of composition. Any composite relationship is also an aggregate > relationship, but not vice versa." That's true in Python, not so in other languages (eg C++) > I think it is these last two sentences that are confusing the OP. I think it probably is, it would confuse me too the first time I saw them. -- Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
