Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!charlie!aragorn!rad
From: rad@aragorn.cm.deakin.oz.au (Robert Alan Dew)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: The Oo challenge
Message-ID: <7840@charlie.OZ>
Date: 4 Oct 89 13:31:31 GMT
References: <8500@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Sender: root@charlie.OZ
Reply-To: rad@aragorn.UUCP (Robert Alan Dew)
Organization: Department of Computing & Mathematics - Deakin University
Lines: 18

In article <8500@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
#
#I would like to start a thread of discussion concerning what I believe
#  [ ... ]
#In the past, we have seen programming-language designers clamor all
#over themselves to grab up and subvert the meanings of all the abstract
#nouns -- "type", "sort", "module", "class", and now "object" are just a few
#of the generic words which have been seized and concreted. (I now
#use the word "kind" extensively when talking about programs. No doubt
#it will be the next to go.)
#

I think "kind" has already gone. The Smalltalk blue book mentions
four kinds of classes.  The book is in the library at the moment, so I
can not give the reference pages, (I do not remember them).  Look up
creating classes with indexed instances variables.

Robert Dew       rad@aragorn.cm.deakin.oz.au